-NRLF 


^- 


VRV 


.RSiTY  OF  California. 


^m 

^ 

^ 

^^ 

S 

^^ 

3^^ 

j^^j 

^^^ 

^^ 

^^ 

^g 

^^^ 

^^ 

£^S{ 

^^» 

^^^ 

'^^ 

^^B 

^^^ 

^^ 

j^^ 

^^gj 

^^ 

i^§ 

i^i 

^^ 

^^ 

^^4^2 

C^g 

^^ 

^^ 

^^ 

^^1 

^^ 

^^ 

^^ 

^s 

^^ 

o 

L^f 

S 

^9| 

S! 

1^^ 

i^3 

^^ 

S^S 

^^ 

c^§ 

^» 

^^ 

^^ 

Q^^ 

K 


r 


Zbe  TIlnivcrsitTS  of  Cblcaflo 

FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER 


THE  SCUTAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE 
IN  ENGLAND 


A     DISSERTATION    PRESENTED    TO    THE    FACULTY    OF    ARTS,    LITERA- 
TURE,    AND    SCIENCE     OF     THE     UNIVERSITY    OF    CHICAGO, 
IN    CANDIDACY    FOR    THE    DEGREE    OF    DOCTOR     OF 
PHILOSOPHY 


DEPARTMENT   OF    HISTORY 


By  JAMES  FOSDICK  BALDWIN 


CHICAGO 

G!)r  Qnibersitj?   of   OTDtcago   ^xti 
1897 


73  73-^ 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Page 

Introduction:   Early  Form  of  Military  Service  -  -  v 

Chapter       I.     Origin  and  Nature  of  the  Scutage    -  -  i 

Chapter     II.     Levies  of  Scutage  under  Henry  II    -         -        i8 

Chapter  III.     Effects  of  the   Scutage   and   Condition  of 

Knighthood  under  Henry  II      -  -         -        59 

Chapter  IV.  Scutage  of  Richard  and  John    -         -         -       66 

Chapter     V.  The  Scutage  under  Henry  III             -         -       86 

Chapter  VI.  Scutage  and  Knight  Service  under  Edward  I      107 

Bibliography -         -         -115 


INTRODUCTION. 

EARLY    FORMS    OF    MILITARY    SERVICE. 

In  order  to  discuss  the  development  of  some  of  the  peculiar 
features  of  knight  service  in  England,  it  is  necessary  to  recall 
certam  facts  relating  to  the  earlier  forms  of  military  service,  as 
they  existed  under  the  Anglo-Saxon  and  under  the  Norman 
kings.  It  is  not  within  the  scope  of  this  dissertation  to  present 
any  new  views  upon  the  beginning  of  English  feudalism,  or  the 
political  relations  of  Norman  to  pre-Norman  England.  Of  these 
trite  questions  it  seems  as  though  satisfactory  solutions  have 
been  reached.  That  the  Norman  Conquest  was  "a  catastrophe 
which  determined  the  whole  future  of  English  Law  ;"  '  that  in  Eng- 
land "  consecutive  political  history  does,  in  a  sense,  begin  with  the 
Norman  Conquest,""  in  opposition  to  the  older  view  that  "it 
(the  Norman  Conquest)  must  be  considered  as  an  event  rather 
than  an  overwhelming  catastrophe,"  3  appears  to  be  pretty  well 
established. 

One  of  the  niost  prevalent  of  all  mediaeval  institutions  is 
that  of  the  obligation  of  military  service  for  land.  It  is  an 
essential  feature  of  feudalism,  but  it  is  not  peculiar  to  feudal 
times  or  feudal  countries  alone.  The  idea  is  seen  developed  in 
the  declining  Roman  Empire,  when  requisitions  for  soldiers  were 
made  by  the  government  upon  the  landed  proprietors ;  *  under 
Charles  the  Great,  whatever  may  have  been  the  theory  of  mili- 
tary duty,  in  practice  it  was  made  dependent  on  the  possessors 
of  land  J  5  in  England,  from  the  time  Hengest  and  Horsa  promised 

'  Polluck  and  Maitland,  Hist.  Eng.  Law,  I,  57. 
*  Round,  Feud.  Eng.,  317. 
'Palgrave,  Eng.  and  Nor.,  Ill,  596. 

"  It  is  not  with  the  coming  of  William  that  the  history  or  the  law  of  England  began." 
Freeman,  N.  C,  V,  SS- 

<Coulange,  La  Gaule  Romaine,  292. 
SCapit.,  808. 


vi  THE  SCUTAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

to  act  in  defense  of  Vortigern  by  virtue  of  their  holding  the 
land  of  Thanet,  military  duty  for  tenure  is  apparent  in  some  form 
or  other.  The  system  naturally  suggests  itself  and  springs  up 
spontaneously'  wherever  the  conditions  are  favorable.  When,  by 
reason  of  the  demands  for  special  training  or  expenditure 
on  the  part  of  those  who  comprise  the  fighting  force  of  the 
country,  the  ordinary  freemen  can  no  longer  be  depended  upon 
to  form  an  adequate  army,  and  when  the  nation  has  not  a  fiscal 
system  capable  of  maintaining  mercenary  troops,  the  landed 
estates  of  the  country  are  alone  capable  of  furnishing  a  soldiery 
that  will  have  the  necessary  equipment  of  horse  and  armor,  to 
sav  nothing  of  skill  at  arms  and  military  esprit. 

So,  under  the  Anglo-Saxon  system,  the  host  which  was  origi- 
nally the  people  in  arms,'  came  to  depend  for  its  strength  upon 
thc.thegnhood.  The  thegn  bore  a  twofold  relation  in  the  state. 
First,  he  was  generally,  though  not  necessarily,  a  landowner.  Five 
hides  arc  the  traditional  quantum  since  Alfred  for  a  thegn  to  hold, 
yet  one  might  be  a  thegn  and  hold  less,  or  hold  more  and  still 
not  be  a  thegn.'  The  presumption  w^as  that  a  thegn  should  have 
the  means  to  maintain  his  rank  on  the  usual  scale,  and  that  one 
possessing  five  hides  of  land  was  "of  thegn-right  worthy." 
Secondly  :  as  a  soldier  the  thegn  was  of  the  character  of  the 
gesith,  a  purely  personal  follower  and  beneficjary  of  the  king. 
That  he  was  remotely  a  development  from  the  early  German 
comes  of  Tacitus  is  not  unlikely .3  As  early  as  the  heptarchy 
period  not  only  the  kings,  but  other  lords  by  gifts  of  land  were 
jiroviding  for  these  antrustions,  who,  being  bound  by  special  oath 
to  their  lords,  could  be  used  more  freely  than  the  fyrd,  which 
could  be  arrayed  only  in  the  defense  of  the  kingdom,  while  the 
thegns  could  be  mustered  for  any  service.''  By  reason  of  this 
personal  connection  with  the  king,  the  thegn-born  acquired  a 
quality  of  nobility  after  the  third  generation.^  In  this  capacity 
they  resemble  the  knights  of  later  time,  and  the  documents  some- 

•Stubbs,  C.  H..  I.  208.  3  Freeman,  N.  C,  I,  90. 

'  Polluck  and  Maitland,   His.  Eng.  Law,  I,  lo. 
♦Gneist,  Self  i;<)v.,  4.  sStubb,  C.  H.,  I,  174. 


INTRODUCTION  Vll 

times  use  the  words  knight  and  thegn  interchangeably.  Thus 
cniht  appears  in  the  Codex  Diplomaticus,  and  miles  is  used  by 
Latin  writers.'  These  things,  among  others,  led  Palgrave  to  call 
the  system  of  the  Anglo-Saxons  feudal.     Thus  : 

"The  feudal  period  of  their  government  must  be  placed  under  Egbert, 
when  we  suddenly  discover  the  application  of  feudal  principles  in  ensuring 
and  enforcing  the  imperial  supremacy  of  the  crown."  * 

"  But  the  full  establishment  of  feudality  appears  in  the  reign  of  Edgar."  ^ 

What  is  characteristic  of  true  feudalism  is  not  merely  the 
relationship  of  letter  and  hirer  of  land,  or  that  of  lord  and  vassal 
alone,  but  the  union  of  both  of  these.*  Of  the  twofold  aspect 
of  thegnhood,  the  theg^n  resembled  the  knight  as  a  military  fol- 
lower of  the  king  (or  other  lord) ,  who  owed  personal  service,  at 
his  own  expensejDf  equipment,  and  at  his  own  expense  during 
the  campaign. 5  Like  the  knight,  the  thegn  on  assuming  his  rank 
was  ushered  in  with  the  honorable  ceremony  of  girding  with  the 
sword  and  belt.  The  principle  of  commendation  also  was 
extended  to  the  utmost  before  the  Conquest.  Every  freeman 
must  choose  his  lord,  and  the  lordless  man  became  a  kind  of 
outlaw.^  But  in  the  aspect  of  a  landholder  the  thegn  was 
materially  different  from  the  knight.  Among  the  Saxons  there 
were  none  of  the  peculiar  Roman  forms  of  tenure,  such  as  the 
precam<m,  emphyteusis,  colonat.  Being  free  from  these  Roman 
influences  England  developed  its  land  system  from  its  Ger- 
man foundation,  and  so  proprietorship  in  land  was  far  less 
complicated  than  in  Gaul.^  All  landj  whether  folk-land  or  book- 
land,  was  subject  to  the  trinoda  necessitas.  Each  hide  was  to 
furnish  its  man,  and  a  thegn  might  be  liable  for  five  men  or  a 
single  warrior  five  times  as  well  equipped  ;^  though  this  principle 
was  never  carried  out  with  strict  regularity.^     In  this  way   each 

'"  Hie  Edwardi  Regis  amiiger  fuit,  et  ab  ilio  cingulum  miiitiae  accepit."  (Ord. 
Vit.,  669.    See  alsoinBede,  miles.) 

"Palgrave,  Commonwealth,  I,  586.  *  Freeman,  N.  C,  I,  91. 

^Ibid.,  587.  7Glasson,  Droit  Ang.,  I,  1 33. 

?*Polluck  and  Maitland,  His.  Eng.  Law,  I,  44.         ^gtubbs,  C.  H.,  I,  211. 
sGneist,  Self  gov.,  11.  'Gneist,  Self  gov.,  3. 


viii  THE  SCUTAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

landowner  performed  service  according  to  the  amount  of  his 
land.  Under  the  feudal  regime  this  was  very  different.  Land 
that  had  been  allotted  as  knights'  fees  owed  its  given  quota  of 
service  irrespective  of  its  extent  or  value.  Lands  that  were  not 
specially  designated  as  knights'  fees  did  not  furnish  this  kind  of 
service.  The  holder  of  knights'  fees  or  a  portion  of  one  fur- 
nished the  particular  service  that  this  land  called  for,  irrespective 
of  his  own  status  or  whatever  other  kind  of  land  he  might  hold. 
The  Anglo-Saxon  proprietor,  on  the  other  hand,  performed  ser- 
vice, not  because  of  a  piece  of  land,  but  for  the  amount  of  his 
land  ;  not  for  land,  but  because(he  was  a  landholder.  In  the  case 
of  knights'  fees,  however  they  n\ight  be  divided  and  cut  up,  they 
ever  remained  knights'  fees  ;  in  the  case  of  a  five-hide  estate 
supporting  one  equipped  as  a  thegn,  if  it  was  broken  up,  the 
fragments  would  not  be  different  from  other  small  estates.  It 
is  no  proof  of  a  theory,  but  a  significant  fact,  that  the  word 
beneficium  by  which  tenure  in  Gaul  was  commonly  known  does 
not  appear  in  the  document  of  England  for  this  epoch. 

The  tendency  which  is  conspicuous  at  a  later  time  among 
the  knights  is  noticeable  among  the  thegns  —  that  of  _becoming 
more  attached  to  their  landed  interests  than  to  their  military 
functions.  The  kings  from  the  time  of  Canute  had  to  depend 
for  their  immediate  needs  upon  the  Hus-carls.  In  the  summer 
of  1066  Harold  could  not  keep  his  regular  levies  together  during 
the  long  time  he  had  to  wait  for  William,  and  the  battle  of 
Hastings  was  fought  largely  by  Hus-carls. 

Such  was  the  uncertain  but  simple  condition  of  military  land- 
tenure  to  the  time  that  the  Normans  came  in  1066.  An  impor- 
tant (juestion  then  is,  what  ideas  of  tenure  did  William  and  his 
men  bring  with  them  ?  One  is  confronted  with  the  lack  of  all 
distinct  information  of  the  jurisprudence  of  Normandy  prior  to 
the  time  of  Philip  Augustus.  The  most  that  is  known  is  that 
Normandy  became  French  rather  than  remained  Scandinavian  in 
character  and  language  ;  that  Roman  influence  is  evident  in  the 
chartered  towns  ;  the  Duke  did  homage  to  the  King  of  France 
as  suzerain   and  was  a  "peer"  in  a  distinctly  feudal   state  ;  the 


INTRODUCTION  IX 

duke  received  homage  and  fealty  of  vassals  acknowledging  their 
duties  and  services;  an  aristocracy  became  defined.'  At  the 
Council  of  Lillebonne,  1066,  a  dispute  between  the  duke  and 
barons  arose  over  the  service  to  be  derived  from  their  tenure, 
just  such  as  afterwards  arose  from  time  to  time  in  England  over 
the  question  of  foreign  expeditions.  Richard  the  Fearless, 
perhaps  upon  the  suggestion  of  Hugh  the  Great,  had  enforced 
an  extensive  conversion  of  allodial  lands  into  feudal  tenure,  and 
"the  Baronage  either  accepted  their  Sovereign's  bounty  upon  his 
own  terms  or  received  a  new  investiture  of  their  lands."'  The 
words  alodi?{m,be?ieJici2i?n,  foedum,  hofior,  praecaritim  appear  in  the 
documents  defining  tenures.^  Military  service  was  due  from 
tenures,  as  seen  from  these  extracts  : 

"  Is  enim  [z.  e.,  William,  brother  of  Richard  II]  fraterno  contubernio  Oxi- 
mensem  ab  ipso  [Duke  Richard  II]  accipiens  munere  comitatum  ut  inde 
exhiberet  ei  militiae  statuta  ....  dominium  ejus  sprevit."" 

William  the  Conqueror  gave  to  the  church  of  Lisieux 

terram  de  Fontaines  .  .  .  .  et  servitium  militum  ....  dominium  cum 
militibus  quod  dedit  Olilia.s 

The  idea  of  the  right  of  marriage  is  suggested  when  William 
of  Jumieges  says  that  Richard  the  Good  gave  to  his  brother 
William  the  county  of  Eu  and  a  beautiful  girl  named  Lescelina, 
the  daughter  of  a  man  of  noble  birth.^     Orderic  says  : 

Guillelmus  Gualterii  de  Falesia  filius  fuit  etin  militia  nimium  viguit,  unde 
Guillelmus  Princeps  [the  Conqueror]  iiliam  Guidmundi  cum  tolo  ci  honore 
Molinensi  contulit.' 

It  is  possible  that  the  French  kings  may  have  claimed  to 
exercise  the  right  of  wardship  over  the  dukes  in  the  case  of 
Louis  d'Outre-Mer  and  Richard  the  Fearless,  and  in  that  of 
Henry  I  and  William.^ 

'  Palgrave,  Eng.  and  Nor.,  III. 

•Palgrave,  Eng.  and  Nor.,  II,  535. 

3Polluck  and  Maitland,  His.  Eng.  Law,  I,  47.     Neustria  Pia. 

*  William  of  Jumifeges  (Duchesne),  250. 
sNeustria  Pia,  585. 

*  Polluck  and  Maitland,  His.  Eng.  Law,  I,  48. 
7  0rd.  Vit.,  II,  409. 

*  Luchaire,  Inst.  Monarchiques,  I,  118.     Ibid.,  II,  16. 


X  THE  SCUTAGE  AXD  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

But  to  say  that  Normandy  was  feudal  does  not  tell  much 
about  the  system  of  tenures.  It  is  not  possible  to  say  how 
definitely  military  obligations  were  attached  to  land;  very  likely 
the  system  was  less  fixed  than  that  developed  under  the  Norman 
kings  in  England.  The  general  uncertainty  regarding  Norman 
institutions  and  the  fuller  knowledge  at  command  of  English 
law  have  led  to  a  belief  that  the  customs  of  Normandy  as  shown 
in  Le  Trh  Ancien  Coutiimicr  and  the  Graiid  Coutimtierwcvc  a  reflex 
of  the  English  administration,  rather  than  that  the  English  ten- 
ures were  an  introduction  from  Normandy.  Says  Palgrave  in 
this  connection,  "the  laws  imposed  by  the  Norman  dynasty  upon 
the  English  were  reflected  back  upon  the  victors ; "'  Freeman 
writes,  "a  system  of  feudal  land-tenures  was  not  introduced  at 
all,  but  was  devised  on  English  ground."^  It  may  not  be  pos- 
sible to  decide  the  question  absolutely,  but  if  it  is  proved  that 
William  the  Conqueror  instituted  knights'  fees,  it  seems  a  more 
reasonable  hypothesis  that  he  built  upon  what  he  and  his  follow- 
ers had  been  accustomed  to  in  Normandv,  than  that  he  con- 
tinued the  Anglo-Saxon  system.  What  little  we  know  of  the 
feudalism  of  Normandy  is  more  like  the  English  knight  service 
than  is  the  Anglo-Saxon  thegn  service. 

While  it  is  not  possible  to  determine  with  what  ideas  of  land- 
tenure  William  came  to  England,  there  has  also  been  great  dis- 
agreement  as  to  what  kind  of  tenure  was  sanctioned  by  the 
jConq^Lierojr,  and  when  knights'  fees  were  introduced.  The  older 
view  of  Selden  and  Blackstone  is  represented  by  Hume : 

He  introduced  into  England  the   feudal  law,  which  he  found  established 

in  France  and  Normandy He  divided  all  the  lands  of  England,  with 

very  few  exceptions  besides  the  royal  demesnes,  into  baronies,  and  he  con- 
ferred these,  with  the  reservation  of  stated  services  and  payments,  on  the 
most  considerable  of  his  adventurers.^ 

That  is,  an  artificial  form  of  feudalism  was  foisted  full-fledged 
upon  the  country,  and  the  round  numbers    of   a    chronicler  are 
'  Palgrave,  Enif.  and  Nor.,  Ill,  626. 
•N.C..V,  377. 
3  Hume,  Hist,  of  Eng..  I,  chap,  iv,  p.  243. 


INTRODUCTION  XI 

accepted  as  authentic'     This  view  has  been  supplanted  by  Stubbs 
and  Freeman : 

It  may  be  assumed  that  the  actual  obligation  of  military  service  was  much 
the  same  in  both  systems,  and  that  even  the  amount  of  land  which  was  bound 
to  furnish  a  mounted  warrior  was  the  same,  however  the  conformity  may  have 
been  produced.'' 

The  system  of  military  tenures  ....  was  a  work  of  the  days  of  William 
Rufus.3 

It  is  strange  that  with  all  the  records  of  the  actions  of  the 
Conqueror,  which  in  most  details  are  quite  minute,  and  with  the 
Domesday  Book,  which  is  an  extraordinary  compendium  of  the 
economic  condition  of  the  time,  there  should  be  no  direct  infor- 
mation upon  this  subject.  There  is  abundance  of  evidence  of 
grants  made  to  Normans  and  of  regrants  made  to  Englishmen. 
"  He  governed  and  disposed  of  the  realm  of  England  as  God 
permitted  him."*  It  appears  in  Domesday  that  where  there  was 
much  rebellion,  as  in  Yorkshire,  Staffordshire,  Cheshire,  Derby- 
shire, Shropshire,  Normans  were  given  estates  ;  where  the  people 
were  submissive,  as  in  Lincolnshire,  Nottinghamshire,  Norfolk, 
the  English  were  allowed  to  keep  their  lands.  William's  con- 
firmations read  like  the  following: 

Rex  eorum  sacramenta  ....  accepit,  liberalita  eis  donavit  gratiam 
suam,  reddidit  eis  cuncta  quae  possiderant,  habebat  eos  magno  honore.^ 

Terras  autem  militibus  ita  distribuit,  et  eorum  ordines  ita  disposuit,  ut 
Angliae  regnum  Ix  millia  militum  indesinenter  haberet,  ac  ad  imperium 
regis,  prout  ratio  poposcerit,  celeriter  exhiberet.* 

The  use  of  the  word  "  thegn  "  in  the  chronicle  does  not  throw 
light  on  the  question  of  tenure  ^  any  more  than  the  use  of  miles 
before  the  Conquest.  "Thegn"  is  used  in  1124,  much  later  than 
any  possible  survival  of  the  institution. 

'For  the  argument  showing  these  numbers  are  preposterous,  see  Round,  Feud. 
Eng.,  290. 

="  Stubbs,  C.  H.,  I,  283.  5  Will.  I'ict.,  1066-7,  148- 

3  Freeman,  N.  C,  V,  377.       «Ord.  Vit.,  1086,  IV,  chap.  7. 

*Ang.-Sax.  Chron.,  1087. 

7  "And  then  were  with  him  all  the  rich  men  over  all  England,  archbishops,  and 
suffragan  bishops,  abbots  and  earls,  thegns  and  knights."     (Ang.-Sax.  Chron.,   1087.) 


xii  THE  SCUTAGE  AND  K'NIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

The  conclusions  from  these  premises,  or  rather  lack  of 
premises,  have  been  that  "  the  customary  service  of  one  fully 
armed  man  for  each  five  hides  was  probably  the  rate  at  which 
the  newly-endowed  follower  of  the  king  would  be  expected  to 
discharge  his  duty.  The  vvcording  of  Domesday  does  not  imply 
that  in  this  respect  [tenure]  th_e  jiew  military  service  differed 
from  the  old ;"']"  There  is  no  ground  for  thinking  that  William 
directly  or  systematically  introduced  any  new  kind  of  tenure 
into  the  holding  of  English  land."' 

The  necessary  corollary  to  these  propositions  is  elaborately 
worked  out  by  Freeman  :  "  But  we  have  seen  that  in  the  davs  of 
the  Conqueror  there  was  no  such  elaborate  system  of  tenure  [as  in 
the  charter  of  Henry  I].  .  .  .  The  inference  is  obvious.^  The 
svstem  of  military  tenures  and  the  oppressive  consequences 
which  were  held  to  flow  from  them  were  a  work  of  the  days  of 
William  Rufus."^ 

That  is,  in  the  fourteen  years  between  1086  and  iioo  there 
was  brought  about  a  most  remarkable  revolution  in  the  system 
of  land-tenures.  Not  only  feudal  aids  and  incidents  and  the 
most  flagrant  abuses  of  these,  but  the  foundation  system  itself 
are  all  conceived  of  as  "not  introduced  into  England  at  all, 
but  devised  on  English  ground  by  the  malignant  genius  of  the 
minister  of  Rufus."  All  this  is  stated  to  be  not  only  instituted, 
but  firmly  established  in  the  rather  short  reign  of  William  II  ; 
for  the  inaugural  charter  of  Henry  I  aims  to  correct  not  the  sys- 
tem itself,  but  the  "evil  customs  "  which  have  unjustly  sprung  up,"* 
and,  as  Mr.  Freeman  says,  "there  is  no  surer  witness  to  the  firm 
establishment  of  an  institution  than  that  it  is  thought  pos- 
sible to  reform  its  abuses  without  abolishing  the  institution 
itself."  5  It  is  possible  that  even  the  feudal  incidents  were  better 
known  before  William  II  than  Mr.  Freeman  represents.^   Almost 

•Stubbs.  C.  n..  I.  284.  -^Ibid.,  377.  5  Freeman,  N.  C,  V,  377. 

»  Freeman,  N.  C,  V,  372.  <  Stubbs,  Sel.  Char.,  100. 

*  N.  C,  V,  374.  "  Relief  does  not  appear  in  evidence  before  William  II."  Yet 
there  is  an  entry  in  Domesday  which  says  when  a  Kentish  alodarius  dies,  "  Rex  "inde 
habet  relevalionem  terrae."  (p.  i.)  Of  the  right  of  marriage  he  states  that  in  the  days 
of  the  Conqueror  there  is  some  glimmering. 


INTRODUCTION  xui 

the  only  thread  upon  which  the  Flambard  theory  hangs  is  a  little 
weak,  for  the  authenticity  of  the  charter  of  Henry  I  is  not  above 
question. 

If  no  ordinance  can  be  produced  by  which  military  tenures 
were  established  it  need  not  seem  very  strange,  when  one  consid- 
ers the  peculiar  spirit  with  which  formal  enactments  were  regarded 
in  the  Middle  Age.  A  law  to  meet  a  particular  emergency  was 
a  thing  which  men  always  shrank  from.  The  entire  bulk  of  the 
laws  of  William  would  be  an  insignificant  amount  compared  with 
the  standards  of  today.  It  would  be  in  keeping  with  the  gen- 
eral policy  of  William  not  to  employ  even  an  ordinance  that 
would  seem  to  be  striking  at  the  existing  order  of  things,'  were 
it  possible  to  secure  the  same  results  by  an  understanding  with 
the  individual  vassals.  It  will  be  further  shown  that  a  general 
ordinance  was  not  necessary,  when  the  manner  of  enfeofment  is 
considered. 

To  the  Norman  followers  of  William  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  a  settled  feudal  tenure  was  the  most  natural  form  of  settle- 
ment.=  The  barons  had  knights  personally  attached  to  them- 
selves—i-for  example,  the  "knights  of  Bishop  Odo;"3  and  of 
other  barons  the  expression  "his  knights"  is  repeatedly  used.'» 
The  Abbot  of  Abingdon^equired  a  guard  of  knights  to  protect 
his  person  wherever  he  went  and  to  defend  his  monastery.  At 
first  he  hired  mercenaries, ^  but  afterward  he  supported  his 
knights  by  grants  that  were  strictly  military.^  It...bas  been  sup- 
posed that  all  grants  at  first  were  on   the  five-hide   standard. ? 

'  "  We  cannot  refuse  the  conclusion  that  there  was  no  written  document  testifying 
to  the  creation  of  military  tenure."     (Palgrave,  Eng.  and  Nor.,  Ill,  612.) 

»  Freeman,  N.  C,  V,  368.  3  Ang.  Sax.  Chron.,  1087.  ■•  Ibid.,  passim. 

sPrimo  quidem  mercenaries  in  hoc  utebatur.     (His.  Ab.,  II,  3.) 

*His  sopitis  incursibus,  quum  jam  Regis  edicto  in  annalibus  annotaretur  quot  de 
episcopiis,  quodve  de  abbatiis  ad  publicam  rem  tuendam  milites  (si  forte  hinc  quid 
caussae  propellendae  contingeret)  exigerentur,  eisdem  donativis  prius  retentis,  abbas 
mansiones  possessionum  ecclesiae  pertinentibus  inde  delegavit,  edicto  cuique  tenore 
parendi  de  suae  portionis  mansione.     [Ibid.) 

7  The  land  is  marked  out  not  into  knights'  fees,  but  into  hides,  and  the  number  of 
knights  to  be  furnished  by  a  particular  feudatory  would  be  ascertained  by  inquiring 
into  the  number  of  hides  that  he  held.     (Stubbs,  C.  H.,  I,  284.) 


xiv  THE  SCi'TAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

There  is  nothing  to  support  this  view  but  the  general  theory  of 
the  continuiJ;y  of  Anglo-Saxon  institutions.  As  soon  as  there  is 
any  data  whatever  there  is  obviously  no  five-hide  standard  either 
for  tenanls-in-chief  or  subtenants.'  In  iioi,  which  is  only  a 
short  time  after  the  enfeofments  already  referred  to,  there  were 
seven  hides  held  of  the  Abbot  of  Abingdon  for  one  knight.* 
When  the  five-hide  unit  no  longer  furnishes  a  working  basis  a 
£20)  income  is  believed  to  be  the  standard  for  rating  a  knight's 
fee. 3  There  is  no  positive  evidence  that  a  knight's  fee  in  the 
twelfth  century  was  determined  by  its  yearly  value  any  more 
than  1)\-  its  acreage;  although  under  the  peculiar  exigencies  of 
the  thirteenth  century  20  librates  were  decided  upon  as  the  rate 
for  the  constraint  of  knighthood.  Mr.  Round  has  pointed  out 
the  main  difficulties  in  the  way  of  this  theory,  but  the  facts  may 
be  stated  more  fully. 

The  Pipe  Rolls  of  Henry  II,  while  raising  many  a  question 
as  to  how  much  service  a  certain  tenant  owed,  do  not  make  any 
reference  to  the  income  of  the  land  as  determining  the  quantum 
of  service  due* 

When  the  lord  came  to  sublet  his  land,  it  might  be  expected 
that  he  would  exact  knights  from  his  tenants  after  a  similar  rat- 
ing. But  a  study  of  the  Scutage  shows  that  he  did  not  do  this. 
It  may  be  well  here  to  bring  out  some  facts  as  to  how  the  mesne 
lords  regranted  the  lands  which  they  held  of  the  king.  A  mesne 
lord   had   the  same  rights  of  granting  his  domains  to  his  vassals 

'  The  Abbot  of  St.  Albans  owed  the  king  the  service  of  6  knights,  and  he  had 
himself  enfeoffed  6  knights,  of  whom  one  held  5  hides  and  i  virgate  for  the  service  of 
I  knight;  another  6  hides  as  a  knight's  fee  ;  another  7  hides  and  i>^  virgates  as  a 
knight's  fee  ;  another  5>4  hides  as  a  knight's  fee.  The  number  of  hides  in  the  other 
two  knights'  fees  is  not  given.  The  abbot  had  other  hides  thai  were  not  given  out 
as  knights'  fees.     (Gesta  St.  Alban.) 

'  Bigelow,  riacita,  78. 

3  "  The  value  of  the  knight's  fee  must  already  have  been  fixed  at  £20  a  year." 
(Stubbs,  C.  H.,  I,  285.)  Gneist's  idea  is  still  more  unsatisfactory  in  the  statement :  "  The 
standard  adopted  ....  was  approximately  that  of  the  five  hidr^"  possession  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon  period,  with  a  still  stricter  rating  according  to  the  value  of  the  produce." 
(Gneist,  C.  H.,  I,  118.) 

*  Round,  Feud.  Eng.,  231-235. 


INTRODUCTION  XV 

as  the  king  had  in  his  domains.  Suppose  the  lord  was  bound 
to  furnish  the  king  lOO  knights;  was  he  sure  to  hold  from  his 
tenants  just  lOO  knights,  no  more,  no  less?  Not  at  all.  Brae- 
ton  says:  "As  the  donor  may  grant  more  freely  than  he  held, 
and  charge  himself  and  his  heirs  towards  his  feoffers,  so  he  may 
charge  his  feoffee  with  more  .§eryices  and  other  than  those 
which  he  owes  to  his  feoffer.  For  he  may  make  out  of  a 
So_cagc  a  Military  tenure,  and  conversely,  if  it  has  been  so 
agreed  between  himself  and  his  feoffee."  And  the  documents 
show  this  usage  in  early  times. 

1.  A  lordjTiight  enfeof  his  lands  for  more  knights  than  he 
owed  to  the  king,  as  is  seen  from  the  fact  that  when  a  bishop- 
rick  was  vacant  and  in  the  custody  of  the  king,  the  Treasury 
received  more  scutage  than  when  the  incumbent  paid  his  servi- 
tmm  debitum^  The  Lord  was  not  allowed  to  gain  too  much 
from  the  military  tenures  held  of  him,  as  he  was  allowed  to 
leyy_Scutage  only  when  the  king  levied  a  scutage  upon  him, 
and  often  he  paid  a  fine  to  obtain  his  scutage.' 

2.  A  tenant-in-chief  might  grant  out  of  a  knight  tenure  a 
holding  free  from  service.  In  such  case  the  domain  retained 
had  to  furnish  the  knight  service  for  the  whole. 3  The  grants  in 
elemosinam  to  churches  were  of  this  kind. 

3.  A  lord  might  grant  military  fiefs  with  limitations  of  his 
right  such  as  did  not  exist  between  the  king  and  himself. ■» 

4.  The  obligations  of  the  under-tenant  to  his  lord  might  be 
a  perfect  counterpart  of  those  of  his  lord  to  the  king. 5 

These  are  instances  enough  to  show  that  mesne  lords  not  only 
let  out  their  holdings  as  they  pleased,  but  it  was  not  done  upon 
t_hejbasi_s  of  hidage  or  evaluation.^  These  facts  are  of  impor- 
tance in  their  bearing  upon  the  development  of  the  Scutage. 

'The  Archbishoprick  of  Canterbury  regularly  paid  for  60  knights,  but  when  it 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  king  it  paid  for  89  knights. —  Pipe  Roll,  18  Hen.  II,  180. 

^  Roger  de  Verli  paid  26 1.  8  d.,  that  he  might  have  the  Scutage  of  his  men.  (21  y 
Hen  II.) 

3,\ncient  Charters,  Ed.  Round.  11,  12,  21.  sSarum  char.,  193. 

*P'eet  of  Fines,  7,  Ric.  I,  No.  75. 

'In  the  place  of  a  discordant  system  of  national  militia  and  personal  vassalage, 


XVI  THE  SCUTAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

The  explanation  of  J\Ir.  Round  is  full  and  convincing  that 

As  against  the  theory  that  the  military  obligation  of  the  Anglo-Norman 
tenant-in-chief  was  determined  by  the  assessment  of  his  holding,  whether  in 
hidage  or  value,  ....  the  extent  of  that  obligation  was  not  determined  by 
his  holding,  but  was  fixed  in  relation  to,  and  expressed  in  terms  of,  the  con- 
stabulqria  oi  ^en  knights,  the  unit  of  the  feudal  host.  And  ....  that  his 
rnilitary  service  was  in  no  way  derived  or  developed  from  that  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxons,  but  was  arbitrarily  fixed  by  the  king,  from  whom  he  received  his  fief, 
irrespectively  both  of  its  size  and  of  all  preexisting  arrangements.' 

Matthew  of  Paris,  therefore,  while  he  could  not  be  accepted 
as  a  first-hand  authority  to  prove  a  theory  for  this  period,  in 
speaking  of  church  holdings  merely,  is  more  nearly  correct  than 
he  has  been  given  credit  of  being,  w'hen  he  says : 

Episcopatus  autem  et  abbatias  omnes,  quae  baronias  tenebant,  et  eate- 
nus  ab  omni  servitio  seculari  libertatem  habuerant,  sub  servitute  statuit  mili- 
tari ;  inrotulans  episcopatus  et  abbatias  pro  voluntate  sua,  quot  milites  sibi  et 
successoribus  suis,  hostilitatis  tempore,  voluit  a  singulis  exhiberi.^ 

The  same  thing  in  the  main  is  true  of  all  holdings  that  were 
made  military.  The  idea  of  a  fixed  servitium  debitum  as  applied 
in  England  was  an  advance  upon  the  system  in  vogue  in  France. 
There  the  great  seigneurs  were  obliged  to  serve  the  king,  but 
they  could  elude  the  law  and  make  the  royal  summons  ineffect- 
ive by  bringing  an  insignificant  number  of  combatants.  Their 
servitium  debitjim  yjzs  not  fixed;  but  lo  knights  seems  to  have 
been  the  minimum  which  a  great  lord  could  furnish. 3  The 
Count  of  Flanders  in  his  treaty  with  Henry  II  agreed  to  furnish 
the  King  of  France  no  more  than  lo  knights  to  fight  the  Eng- 
lish King.'* 

In  the  case  of  the  few  great  tenants-in-chief  the  service  of 
some  number  _of  knights,  from  15  to  lOO,  misfht  be  assigned 
^^iit^^^lJILHfiLI^-S^''^  to  the  extent  of  their  holdings.  But  in 
the  case  of  the  small  tenant-in-chief,  who  he]d  but  one  or  scv- 

the  whole  of  the  landed  property  in  the  country,  so  far  as  it  was  able  to  bear  the  nec- 
essary burden  of  heavily  armed  troops,  had  to  adopt  the  principle  of  a  standing  army 
based  upon  the  revenue  derived  from  the  land.     (Gneist,  C.  H.,  1,^117.) 

'  Round,  Feud.  Eng.,  261.  3  Luchaire,  Manuel,  607. 

'Mat.  Par.,  Historia  Anglorum,  I,  13.  ••Liber  Niger,  15  et seq. 


INTRODUCTION  xvil 

eral  knights'  fees^^  some  rcjgard  had  _to_be^£  to  the  principle 
which  was  necessa,rily  the  basis  of  the  whole  system  —  that  a 
knight's  fee,  like  the  estate  of  a  thegn,  must  be  sufficient  to  sup- 
port the  dignity  and  requirements  of  knighthood.  While  it 
is  true  that  the  area  of  a  normal  fee  was  not  infrequently 
between  JL3n.cL..,5_ Jhides,  the  ir£egularity  was  too  great  to  allow 
of  any  fi x e d jj^l.e^  On  the  same  estate  one  will  find  fees_con- 
sisting  of  any  number  from  9  to  22  carucates. ' 

There  is  another  feature  of  the  early  knight  service  which  is 
to  be  carefully  noted,  because  of  its  bearing  upon  the  later  devel- 
opment of  this  institution.  The  "feudal  system,"  so  called, 
which  was  introduced  into  England,  docs  not  iiuan  a  system  of 
feudal  government,  but  merely  designates  the  system  of  land- 
tenures  which  came  into  vogue.  Any  kind  of  free  tenure, 
w;hcther_  by;  knight  service,  serjeantry,  socage,  burgage,  frankal- 
moigrie,  was  considered  a  fepdurn  with  its  respective  obliga- 
tions. That  by  knight  service  was  the  tenure  par  excellency: ; 
how  extensive  it  was  cannot  be  determined  from  any  evidences 
before  the  time  of  Henry  11.^  The  purpose  of  granting  knights' 
fees  on  the  part  of  the  king  was  almost  exclusively  military  ; 
that  is,  to  have  a  self-supporting  army  ready  for  any  exigency 
at  his  command.3  That  the  knights  might  be  able  to  equip 
themselves  vyjth  horses  and  arms  in  a  proper  manner,  they  were 
given_exemgitions  from  gelds  and  other  burdens  in  the  charter 
of  Henry  I.  The  political  functions  of  tcnants-in-chief,  with 
the  exception  of  the  earls,  were  scarcely  thought  of.  They 
were  called  together  from  time  to  time  solely  for  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  monarch,  whether  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance,  to 
lend  their  advice,  or  merely  for  pompous  display.  The  barons 
did  not  regard  themselves  of  any  consequence,  by  virtue  of 
their  baronies,  in  the  settlement  of  public  business.     The  ques- 

•Red  Book  of  Exch.,  735. 

*That  the  estimates  of  32,000  or  60,000  knights  are  totally  mythical,  see  Round, 
Feud.  Eng.,  289. 

3  Terras  autem  militibus  ita  distribuit  et  eorum  ordines  ita  disposuit,  ut  Angliae 
regnum— millia  militum  indesiniter  haberet,  ac  ad  imperium  regis,  prout  ratio,  popo- 
scerit,  celeriter  exhiberet.     (Ord.  Vit.,  IV,  7.) 


XV  i  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

The  explanation  of  Mr.  Round  is  full  and  convincing  that 

As  against  the  theory  that  the  military  obligation  of  the  Anglo-Norman 
tenant-in-chief  was  determined  by  the  assessment  of  his  holding,  whether  m 

hidage  or  value the  extent  _of  that  obligation  was  not  determined  by 

his  holding,  but  wjis  fixed  in  relation  to,  and  expressed  in  terrns  of,  the  con- 
stabulnria  of,  l;en  knights,  the  unit  of  the  feudal  host.  And  ....  that  his 
rnilitary  service  was  in  no  way  derived  or  developed  from  that  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxons,  but  was  arbitrarily  fixed  by  the  king,  from  whom  he  received  his  fief, 
irrespectively  both  of  its  size  and  of  all  preexisting  arrangements.' 

Matthew  of  Paris,  therefore,  while  he  could  not  be  accepted 
as  a  first-hand  authority  to  prove  a  theory  for  this  period,  in 
speaking  of  church  holdings  merely,  is  more  nearly  correct  than 
he  has  been  given  credit  of  being,  when  he  says : 

Episcopatus  autem  et  abbatias  omnes,  quae  baronias  tenebant,  et  eate- 
nus  ab  omni  servitio  seculari  libertatem  habuerant,  sub  servitute  statuit  mili- 
tari ;  inrotulans  episcopatus  et  abbatias  pro  voluntate  sua,  quot  milites  sibi  et 
successoribus  suis,  hostilitatis  tempore,  voluit  a  singulis  exhiberi.^ 

The  same  thing  in  the  main  is  true  of  all  holdings  that  were 
made  military.  The  ijdeajof  a  ^y^^sjtyitium  debihirn  as  applied 
in  England  was  an  advance  upon  the  system  in  vogue  in  France. 
There  the  great  seigneurs  were  obliged  to  serve  the  king,  but 
they  could  elude  the  law  and  make  the  royal  summons  ineffect- 
ive by  bringing  an  insignificant  number  of  combatants.  Their 
servitium  debitum  vidiS  noi  fixed;  but  lo  knights  seems  to  have 
been  the  minimum  which  a  great  lord  could  furnish. 3  The 
Count  of  Flanders  in  his  treaty  with  Henrv  II  agreed  to  furnish 
the  King  of  France  no  more  than  lo  knights  to  fight  the  Eng- 
lish King.* 

In  the  case  of  the  few  great  tenants-in-chief  the  service  of 
some  number  of  knights,  from  15  to  lOO,  might  be  assigned 
without  much  regard  to  the  extent  of  their  "holdings.  But  in 
the  case  of  tlie  small  tenant-in-chief,  who  held  but  one  or  scv- 

the  whole  of  the  landed  property  in  the  country,  so  far  as  it  was  able  to  bear  the  nec- 
essary burden  of  heavily  armed  troops,  had  to  adopt  the  principle  of  a  standing  army 
based  upon  the  revenue  derived  from  the  land.     (Gneist,  C.  H.,  I, '117.) 

'  Round,  Feud.  Eng.,  261.  ^Luchaire,  Manuel,  607. 

'.Mat.  Par.,  Historia  Anglorum,  I,  13.  •♦Liber  Niger,  15  et seq. 


INTRODUCTION  XVU 

eral  knights'  fees^  some  regard  had  to  be  paid  to  the  principle 
which  was  necessarily  the  basis  of  the  whole  system  —  that  a 
knight's  fee,  like  the  estate  of  a  thegn,  must  be  sufficient  to  sup- 
port the^di^nityjind  requirements  of  knighthood.  While  it 
is  true  that  the  area  of  a  normal  fee  was  not  infrequently 
between  .4.and__5 _hjdes,  the  ir£egularity  was  too  great  to  allow 
of  any  fixedLjj^le>.  On  the  same  estate  (jiic  will  find  fees  con- 
sisting of  any  number  from  9  to  22  carucates. ' 

There  is  another  feature  of  the  early  knight  service  which  is 
to  be  carefully  noted,  because  of  its  bearing  upon  the  later  devel- 
opment of  this  institution.  The  "feudal  system,"  so  called, 
which  was  introduced  into  England,  does  not  mean  a  system  of 
feudal  government,  but  merely  designates  the  system  of  land- 
tenures  which  came  into  vogue.  Any  kind  of  free  tenure, 
whether  bj-  knight  service,  serjeantry,  socage,  burgage,  frankal- 
moigne,  was  considered  a  feodum  with  its  respective  obliga- 
tions. That  by  knight  service  was  the  tenure  /^/r  txccllcnce ; 
how  extensive  it  was  cannot  be  determined  from  any  evidences 
before  the  time  of  Henry  11.^  The  purpose  of  granting  knights' 
fees  on  the  part  of  the  king  was  almost  exclusively  military  ; 
that  is,  to  have  a  self-supporting  army  ready  for  any  exigency 
at  his  command. 3  Thai  the  knights  might  be  able  to  equip 
themselvesvvith  horses  and  arms  in  a  proper  manner,  they  were 
given^exemptions  from  gelds  and  other  burdens  in  the  charter 
of  Henry  I.  The  political  functions  of  tcnants-in-chief,  with 
the  exception  of  the  earls,  were  scarcely  thought  of.  They 
were  called  together  from  time  to  time  solely  for  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  monarch,  whether  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance,  to 
lend  their  advice,  or  merely  for  pompous  display.  The  barons 
did  not  regard  themselves  of  any  consequence,  by  virtue  of 
their  baronies,  in  the  settlement  of  public  business.     The  ques- 

'Red  Book  of  Exch.,  735. 

*That  the  estimates  of  32,000  or  60,000  knights  are  totally  mythical,  see  Round, 
Feud.  Eng.,  289. 

3  Terras  autem  militibus  ita  distribuit  et  eorum  ordines  ita  disposuit,  ut  Angliae 
regnum — millia  militum  indesiniter  haberet,  ac  ad  imperium  regis,  prout  ratio,  popo- 
scerit,  celeriter  exhiberet.     (Ord.  Vit.,  IV,  7.) 


xviii  THE  SCUTAGE  AXD  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

tion  of  a  right  on  the  part  of  the  barons  to  a  voice  in  the  great 
council  for  this  early  time  does  not  need  to  be  raised,  because 
there  is  no  trace  of  any  desire  on  their  part  to  be  summoned,  as 
a  privilege  and  honor,  before  the  reign  of  John,  and  even  then 
the  summons  was  desired  not  as  an  honor  so  much  as  the  means 
of  mitigating  demands  for  money.'  So  far  as  we  know,  there 
was  no  such  term  as  *' Peer  of  the  Realm "  for  the  Norman 
period.  "  Earl"  was  used  as  a  title;  "Baron"  was  not  so  used, 
much  less  "Knight."  The  kniglits  of  William  were  necessarily 
adventurous  soldiers,'  who  were  recommended  by  nothing  but 
their  fighting  qualities.  In  other  words,  there  was  the  closest 
connection  between  this  form  of  land-tenure  and  personal  serv- 
ice in  the  field.  I_f_J<nights  did  not  conduct  themselves  with 
bravery,  their  fiefs  might  be  taken  from  them  and  given  to 
others  of  better  courage." 3  The  writers  of  the  time  of  the  Con- 
queror hardly  refer  to  knights  except  in  their  military  connec- 
tion;  thus  there  are  probati  milites,  "good  knights,"  "brave 
knights."  Yet  knighthood  was  of  itself  honorable,  as  the  Con- 
queror at  Westminster,  in  the  Pentacostal  season,  dubbed  the 
atheling,  Henry,  to  rider  or  knight.*  But  under  William  Rufus 
there  was  an  infusion  of  the  chivalric  idea,  and  the  knight 
first  appears  as  belonging  to  a  special  class  with  peculiar  ties  to 
others  of  that  class.  The  expression  probus  miles,  afterwards 
so  common,  occurs  for  the  first  time.s  Th^ere  is  a  manifest 
increase  in  social  prestige  of  knighthood,  as  is  indicated  by  such 
expressions^^as  "a   wealthy  and   powerful  knight,"  "the  noble 

'Pike,  Const.  His.  of  House  of  Lords,  92. 

'"  Ignorant  upstarts,  driven  almost  mad  by  their  sudden  elevation,  wondered  how 
they  arrived  at  such  a  pilch  of  power,  and  thought  they  might  do  what  they  liked." 
(Ord.  Vit,  IV,  8.) 

3  When  the  Welsh  in  1096  were  besieging  Pembroke  castle,  15  knights,  despair- 
ing of  resistance,  made  their  escape  in  a  boat.  Their  esquires  were  more  faithful  : 
"  ex  desperatione  scapham  intrantes  navigio  fugam  attemptassent,  in  crastino  mane 
Giraldus  eorum  armigeris  arma  dominorum  cum  feodis  dedit,  ipsosque  statim  militari 
cingulo  decoravit."     (Gir.  Camb.    See  Freeman,  William  K.,  II,  mr,.) 

*Chron.  Petrib.,  1086. 

5  .Vbsit    a    me    ut    credam    quod    probus    miles    violet    fidem    suam.     (Ord.    Vit. 

X,  7.) 


INTRODUCTION  xix 

knight,"'  "who  ranked  high  as  knights  and  men  of  worth,"' 
these  phrases  being  employed  aside  from  any  military  connec- 
tion. In  France  it  became  a  custom  with  the  early  kings  to 
create  titles  of  knighthood  purely  as  an  honor.  And  Jt  came 
abqut_that  as  the  dignity  of  an  honorary  title  was  great,  that 
those  who  were  already  knights  by  virtue  of  their  lands  wished 
to  submit  to  the  formalities  of  admission  into  the  honorary 
knighthood.  No  such  usage  became  common  in  England  before 
John,  but  there  is  a  suggestion  of  it  under  William  II,  who,  it  is 
said,  "gloried  in  the  pomp  of  his  numerous  troops.  His  great 
delight  consisted  in  conferring  the  honors  of  knighthood  on 
account  of  the  worldly  splendor  with  which  it  surrounded  him. "3 
Under  Henry  I  the  employment  of  the  baronage  in  the  work 
of  administration  becomes  prominent.  Many  of  the  older  nobil- 
ity had  proved  themselves  too  warlike  and  fractious,  like  Robert 
of  Bellesme ;  these  were  dispossessed,  and  men  of  lower  rank 
were  endowed  with  the  estates  made  vacant.*  Many  of  the 
Tiovi  homines,  though  of  humble  origin,  were  ennobled,  as  nobil- 
ity depended  more  upon  land-tenure  and  the  king's  will  than 
upon  the  transmission  of  blood.  In  this  reign  undoubtedly 
feudal  tenures  were  thoroughly  established.  Yet  the  aid  for  the 
marriage  of  the  king's  daughter  in  1109  is  stated  to  have  been 
raised  not  from  knights'  fees,  but  by  a  tax  on  the  hides,'  and 
this  "new-fangled  form  of  exaction"  naturally  seemed  unreason- 
able to  the  people  who  were  not  feudal  tenants.*^  Yet  such  con- 
fusion of  the  national  and  feudal  ideas  is  to  be  constantly  met 
with.  The  king,  according  as  it  serves  his  purpose,  has  the 
vantage  ground  of  both  suzerain  and  sovereign.  Among  the 
knights,  encouraged  perhaps  by  the  spirit  of  the  crusades,  chiv- 
alrous and  courtier-like  tendencies  are  growing^  in  spite  of  the 
stricter  discipline  introduced  by  Henry  on  his  accession. 
Throughout    the    reigns    of    the    Norman    kings    the    array    of 

•  Ord.  Vit.,  VII,  22 ;    Ibid,  VIII.  24.  3  ibid.,  VIII,  8. 

» Ibid.,  VIII,  25.  « Ibid.,  XI,  3. 

sCepit  de  unaquaque  hida  Angliae  tres  solidas.     (Hen.  Hunt.) 

'Ang.-Sax.  Chron.,  mo. 

'See  description  of  changes  in  fashion  of  hair-cutting.    (Will.  Malm.,  II,  476.) 


XX  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

kmghts  was  the  main  reliance  in  military  matters.  Of  the 
forces  which  followed  William  to  England  no  enumeration  is 
made  of  any  except  the  knights,  and  vyherever  infantry  are 
ejnployed  in  conjunction  with  the  cavalry  figures  are  not  given 
to  such  an  extent  that  one  can  estimate  the  relative  numbers 
generally  used.'  Yet  the  popular  levy,  under  the  old  name  the 
^d,  was  used  by  each  of  the  Norman  kings ;  whether  to  sup- 
port them  against  a  rebellious  baronage,  as  at  the  beginning  of 
the  reigns  of  William  II  and  Henry  I,  or  act  as  a  reinforcement 
f  of  the  knight  service,  as  in  1097  William  Rufus  found  he  could 
!  succeed  much  better  against  the  Welsh  with  the  aid  of  \\\q  fyrd;'^ 
or  it  may  have  been  simply  convenient  at  times  to  call  out  the 
^r^  alone,  as,  in  1094,  20,000  English  were  ordered  to  aid  the 
king  in  Normandy .3  Not  counting  the  anarchical  period  of 
Stephen,  when  the  right  of  private  warfare  was  almost  admitted 
by  the  king.  Such  was  the  legal  status  of  knight  tenure  at  the 
beginning  of  the  reign  of  Henry  II.  In  a  word,  the  chief  differ- 
ences from  the  old  regime  were : 

1.  Fixed  obligations  in  tenure. 

2.  A  strengthening  of  the  hereditary  principle. 

3.  A  closer  connection  between  land  and  title  or  rank.-* 

'1 149;  Henry  came  to  England  with  140  knights  and  3,000  infantry.  (Will. 
New.,  88.) 

*iii9;  " Acies  pedestris  in  qua  filii  Henrici  inerant."     (Hen.  Hunt.,  241.) 

Henry  of  Huntingdon  speaks  in  one  connection  of  princeps  militum  and  princeps 
peditum.     (278.) 

3Ang.  Sax.  Chron.,  1094. 

*  Pike,  Const.  His.  of  House  of  Lords,  chap.  v. 


CHAPTER  I. 

ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  THE  SCUTAGE. 

The  obligations  of  knight  tenure  may  be  considered  as  mili- 
tary and  7ion-7nilitary .  The  military  oblig^ations  are  those  of 
personal  service  in  the  field,  and  Scutage  under  proper  con- 
ditions ;,'^fe  non-military  features  are  the  three  regular  feudal 
aids,  namely,  for  the  marriage  of  the  lord's  eldest  daughter,  at 
the  knighting  of  his  eldest  son,  and  for  the  ransom  of  his 
person,  besides  the  so-called  feudal  incidents,  such  as  wardship, 
escheat,  forfeiture,  marriage,  which  are  hardly  to  be  called  obli- 
gations. A  non-military  obligation  of  an  irregular  kind  was  the 
Tallage.  This  was  theoretically  a  gift  to  the  king  or  lord,  but 
practically  a  mulct  of  an  arbitrary  nature.  The  Tallage  was 
generally  levied  by  no  regular  method  of  assessment,  and  it  may 
be  considered  at  times  of  a  feudal,  and  again  of  a  non-feudal 
character,  as  it  was  levied  upon  a  variety  of  objects,  and  often 
appears  in  the  light  of  class  taxation. 

As  the  subject  of  feudal  taxation  is  studied  in  the  Rolls  the 
names  used  are  somewhat  confused,  and  it  will  aid  the  following 
discussion  to  define  these  terms.  Auxilium,  dofmm,  assisa,  and 
scutagiH7n,  particularly  in  the  early  records,  are  used  in  senses 
overlapping  one  another.  Auxilium  is  used  most  broadly  for 
any  kind  of  a  grant,  whether  feudal  or  non-feudal.  Dgnum  also 
is  quite  a  general  term,  and  is  applied  to  a  variety  of  oblations, 
as  the  Do?ium  vicecomitis,  Domim  praelatorum,  Dojium  jnilitum. 
Donum,  therefore,  may  mean  either  some  form  of  Tallage  or 
Scutage.  Assisa_  is  an  old-fashioried.  term  meaning  the  same 
z^Doiium.  Tallagium  is  a  word  seldom  used  in  the  Rolls  of 
Henry  H,  but  is  much  used  at  a  later  period.  Scutagiiim  w:ill  be 
better  defined  at  a  later  point.  The  use  of  these  various  terms  in 
the  official  records  may  be  illustrated  by  the  following  diagram  : 

I 


XX  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

knights  was  the  _main  reliance  in  military  matters.  Of  the 
forces  which  followed  William  to  England  no  enumeration  is 
made  of  any  except  the  knights,  and  wherever  infantry  are 
e^j)loyed  in  conjunction  with  the  cavalry  figures  are  not  given 
to  such  an  extent  that  one  can  estimate  the  relative  numbers 
generally  used.'  Yet  the  popular  levy,  under  the  old  name  the 
^^rd,  was  used  by  each  of  the  Norman  kings ;  whether  to  sup- 
port them  against  a  rebellious  baronage,  as  at  the  beginning  of 
the  reigns  of  William  II  and  Henry  I,  or  act  as  a  reinforcement 
I  of  the  knight  service,  as  in  1097  William  Rufus  found  he  could 
j  succeed  much  better  against  the  Welsh  with  the  aid  of  \\\&  fyrd;^ 
or  it  may  have  been  simply  convenient  at  times  to  call  out  the 
^r^  alone,  as,  in  1094,  20,000  English  were  ordered  to  aid  the 
king  in  Normandy .3  Not  counting  the  anarchical  period  of 
Stephen,  when  the  right  of  private  warfare  was  almost  admitted 
by  the  king.  Such  was  the  legal  status  of  knight  tenure  at  the 
beginning  of  the  reign  of  Henry  II.  In  a  word,  the  chief  differ- 
ences from  the  old  regime  were : 

1.  Fixed  obligations  in  tenure. 

2.  A  strengthening  of  the  hereditary  principle. 

3.  A  closer  connection  between  land  and  title  or  rank.'* 

'II49;    Henry    came  to  England   with    140  knights  and  3,000  infantry.     (Will. 
New.,  88.) 

'1119;   " Acies  pedestris  in  qua  filii  Henrici  inerant."     (Hen.  Hunt.,  241.) 
Henry  of  Huntingdon  speaks  in  one  connection  of  princeps  militum  and  princeps 
I   peditum.     (278.) 

3Ang.  Sax.  Chron.,  1094. 

*  Pike,  Const.  His.  of  House  of  Lords,  chap.  v. 


CHAPTER  I. 

ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  THE  SCUTAGE, 

The  oWigations  of  knight  tenure  may  be  considered  as  mili- 
tar^^  and  yioii-militayy.  The  niUjtaiQf  oblig^ations  are  those  of 
personal  service  in  the  field,  and  Scutage  under  proper  con- 
ditions ;fjhfe  non-military  features  are  the  three  regular  feudal 
aids,  namely,  for  the  marriage  of  the  lord's  eldest  daughter,  at 
the  knighting  of  his  eldest  son,  and  for  the  ransom  of  his 
person,  besides  the  so-called  feudal  incidents,  such  as  wardship, 
escheat,  forfeiture,  marriage,  which  are  hardly  to  be  called  obli- 
gations. A  non-military  obligation  of  an  irregular  kind  was  the 
Tallage.  This  was  theoretically  a  gift  to  the  king  or  lord,  but 
practically  a  mulct  of  an  arbitrary  nature.  The  Tallage  was 
generally  levied  by  no  regular  method  of  assessment,  and  it  may 
be  considered  at  times  of  a  feudal,  and  again  of  a  non-feudal 
character,  as  it  was  levied  upon  a  variety  of  objects,  and  often 
appears  in  the  light  of  class  taxation. 

As  the  subject  of  feudal  taxation  is  studied  in  the  Rolls  the 
names  used  are  somewhat  confused,  and  it  will  aid  the  following 
discussion  to  define  these  terms,  Auxilmm,  do?iJim,  assisa,  and 
scutagium,  particularly  in  the  early  records,  are  used  in  senses 
overlapping  one  another.  Auxiliutn  is  used  most  broadly  for 
any  kind  of  a  grant,  whether  feudal  or  non-feudal.  Dotmrn  also 
is  quite  a  general  term,  and  is  ag£lie^__to^aj/ariety  of  oblations, 
as  the  Donum  vicecomitis,  Dontim  praelatorutn,  Do7mm  miliUim. 
Donum,  therefore,  may  mean  either  some  form  of  Tallage  or 
Scutage.  Assisa_  is  an  old-fashioned  term  meaning  the  same 
3^  Donum.  Tallagium  is  a  word  seldom  used  in  the  Rolls  of 
Hen£yJJj  but  is  much  used  at  a  later  period.  SattagitimmM  be 
better  defined  at  a  later  point.  The  use  of  these  various  terms  in 
the  oflficial  records  may  be  illustrated  by  the  following  diagram  : 


THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 


Auxilium 


Feudal 


Non-feudal 


i)  Lord's  Ransom 

2)  Marriage  of  the 
daughter 

3)  Knighting  of 
the  son 


Occasional  Aids, 
called  Dona 


Tax  on 

mobilia 


Carucage 
or  Hidage 


Scutage  Tallage 

1.  On  Towns 

2.  Desmesne 

3.  Carucates 

4.  Church  lands 

5.  Jews,  Moneyers,  etc. 

The  word  Scutage,  says  Madox,  had  both  a  limited  and  an 
extensive  sense  —  the  o^e  being  that  of  payment  in  lieu  of  per- 
sonal service ;  the  other  referring  to  any  aid  paid  from  the 
knights'  fees.  Whatever  difference  there  is  between  the  one 
case  and  the  other  in  regard  to  the  object  for  which  the  money 
was  raised,  the  mode  of  levying  was  the  same  in  either  case.  In 
1 168  an  aid  was  raised  for  the  marriage  of  the  King's  daughter; 
auxilium  is  the  word  commonly  employed  in  the  Pipe  Roll,  but 
scutagium  is  used  here  and  there,  as  if  interchangeably.  The 
subject  of  the  Scutage,  as  it  appeared  under  Henry  II,  will  be 
discussed  in  reference  to  origin,  nature,  occasions,  and  effect. 

It  has  been  supposed  that  there  was  no  such  thing  as  scutage 
before  the  year  11  56.'  But  like  some  other  institutions  which 
began  under  Henry  I,  and  were  more  fully  developed  by  Henry 
II,  scutage  in  some  form  or  other  existed  in  the  time  of  Henry  I.' 
How  generally  it  was  applied,  whether  it  extended  to  any  but 
fiefs  of  the  clergy,  does  not  appear ;  but  from  the  fragmentary 
refofences  which  have  been  found  by  Mr.  Round,  it  is  evident 
that  such  payments  were  not  unusual,  and  that  they  were  made, 
as  at  a  later  time,  ''pro  milidbtts,"  that  is,  in  accordance  with  the 

'"The  term  Scutage,  now  [1156]  first  employed."     (Stubbs,  C.  H.,  I,  491.) 
*  Round,  Feud.  Eng.,  268. 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  THE  SCUT  AGE  3 

number  of  knights  owed  by  the  tenants.'  The  rate  of  assess- 
ment for  this  early  time  appears  as  high  as  I  ^  /.  per  fee,  a  rate 
higher  than  at  any  time  under  Henry  II,  and  was  not  always 
easy  to  pay.  The  assumption  that  scutage  did  not  exist  before 
Henry  II  has  been  based  upon  the  statement  of  Swereford,  the 
author  of  the  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer.  He,  however,  only 
states  that,  while  he  has  inspected  but  few  annals,  he  has  never 
observed  or  heard  of  the  assessment  of  scutage  for  the  time  of 
Henry  I.'  It  is  also  due  this  author  to  state  that  he  modestly 
claims  knowledge  from  the  rolls  alone.3 

Thus  the  church  of  Ely,  which  owed  40  knights,  is  given  a 
charter  permitting  it  to  pay  60  /.  scutage  instead  of  100/.,  which 
it  used  to  pay, 3  and  the  Bishop  of  Norwich,  who  owed  40  knights, 
complains  of  the  difificulty  of  paying  60  /.  for  his  knights.*     The 
occasion,  therefore,  of  a  scutage  in  4JL56  should  not  have  created  \ 
any  surprise.    John  of  Salisbury,  the  only  writer  who  says  anything  I 
about  it,  does  not  refer  to  it  as  a  new  thing. 5  As  the  rate  was  20  s.  it  1 
was  less  than  had  been  paid  before.     The  opposition,  therefore,  of  I 
Archbishop  Theobald,  which    is    brought   up   by   historians   to 
imply  that   the   tax  was  a  new   departure,^  may  have  been   not 
against   the  Scutage  as  an  institution,  but   against   the  particular 
levy.     The  mere  opposition  of  an  individual  churchman,  as  can 
be  shown  in  repeated  instances,  does  not  prove  anything  regard- 
ing the  validity  of  a  constitutional  principle.     Likewise,  it  will 
be  made  clear  that  the  grumbling  of  the   clergy  over  the  exac- 
tion of    1 1 59  was   not  because    they  objected    to   the   Scutage 
itself. 

The  levy  of  1 1  59,  which  has  been  commonly  called  the  "  Great 

' "  Praedicta  ecclesia  solebat  dare  de  Scutagio  quando  Scutagium  currebat  per 
terram."  Liber  Eliensis,  Charter,  no.  xxi.  The  authenticity  of  parts  of  this  charter 
is  questioned  by  Mr.  Hubert  Hall,  Red  Book  clii,  but  the  main  fact  of  an  assessment 
on  church  fiefs  is  admitted. 

•"Temporibus  regis  Henrici  primi,  licet  ejusdem  paucos  inspeximus  annales.'hec 
inspeximus  vel  audivi  fuisse  scutagia  assisa."     (Red  Book  of  Exch.,  5.) 

'Red  Book  of  Exch.,  6.  ■•Letters:  Ed.  Giles,  51. 

5  V'erum  interim  Scutagium  remittere  non  potest,  et  a  quibusdam  exactionibus,  etc. 
(Jn  Sal.,  Ep.,  128.) 

«Stubbs,  C.  H.,  I,  492. 


4  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

Scutage,"  has  occasioned  most  of  the  discussion  as  to  the  origin 
of  the  institution.  Kate  Norgate  finds  its  suggestion  in  the  device 
of  Ranulf  Flambard,  who,  when  20,000  men  of  the  fyrd  had  been 
called  out  in  1093  to  follow  the  King  to  Normandy,  took  from 
each  soldier  10  shillings  of  the  money  he  had  with  him  for  per- 
sonal expenses,  and  disbanded  the  army.'  The  explanation  is  a 
fanciful  one,  for  it  is  impossible  to  say  whether  the  promoters 
of  the  Scutage  had  the  single  event  of  1093  in  mind  any 
more   than  several  other  things   not  more  remotely  suggestive 

[  Stubbs  considers  that  a  precedent  was  found  in  the  ancient 
fyrdwite,  the  heavy  fine  by  the  Anglo-Saxon  freeman  for  neglect 

(  of  the  host.^  The  fyrdwite  explanation  does  not  meet  the  case. 3 
The  fine  and  forfeiture  of  the  Anglo-Saxons  imposed  for 
neglect  or  desertion  of  duty*  had  their  exact  counterparts  under 
the  feudal  regime.  According  to  the  feudal  law,  if  a  military 
tenant  failed  in  his  obligations,  he  was  guilty  of  a  default,  and  in 
an  extreme  case  would  be  liable  to  forfeiture,  which  might  be 
mitigated  to  a  fine.^  In  1205  John  threatened  with  forfeiture 
the  knights  as  well  as  other  tenants  who  failed  to  come  for  the 
defense  of  the  kingdom.^  The  Scutage  did  not  supplant  the 
fines,  for  in  the  i  3th  century  fines  for  failure  to  obey  the  summons 
went  along  together  with  Scutage  in  a  peculiar  way.     The  truth 

'Norgate,  Anj.  Kings,  I,  432.     Also,  Palgrave,  Eng.  and  Nor.,  IV,  409. 
If   'Stubbs,  C.  H.,  I,  209  and  494. 

3 John  did  the  same  thing  with  his  barons  in  1201.  "Cum  barones  Angliae  essent 
congregati  ad  Portesmoue  ad  transfretandum  cum  rege,  rex  cepit  de  quibusdam  illorum 
pecuniamquam  expenderent  in  servicio  suo,  et  permisit  eos  domum  redire.  (Hoved., 
IV,  163.) 

*  Stubbs,  C.  H.,  I,  209. 

S1203.  Deinde  in  comites  et  barones  occasiones  praetendens  quod  ipsum  inter 
hostes  reliquerant  in  partibus  transmarinis,  unde  castella  et  terras  suas  pro  eorum 
defectu  amiserat,  cepit  ab  eis  septimam  partem  omnem  mobilium  suorum.  (Matt.  Par., 
209.) 

"Wer  nicht  erschien,  ging,  wenn  er  ohne  Erlaubnis  des  Herrn  daheim  geblieben, 
seines  Leben  verlustig."     (Waitz,  D.  V.  G.,  VIII,  144.) 

*  Et  si  quis  miles  vel  serviens  vel  alius  terram  tenens  inventus  fuerit,  qui  se  inde 
retraxerit,  dummodo  tanta  non  fuerit  gravatus  infirmitate  quod  illuc  venire  non  possit, 
ipse  et  haeredes  sui  in  perpetuum  exhaeredabuntur,  et  feodum  suum  remanebit  domino 
fundi  ad  faciendum  inde  voluntatem  suam.     (Sel.  Char.,  282,) 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  THE  SCUT  AGE  5 

is  that  an  exchange  of  money  payment  for  any  kind  of  service 
is  a  most  natural  thing,  and  the  principle  is  exemplified  in  various 
countries,  times,  and  conditions.  Thus  under  the  later  Roman 
Empire  armies  were  raised  by  a  system  of  conscriptions  upon  the 
possessors  of  landed  property.  A  great  proprietor  was  bound 
to  furnish  several  soldiers  from  his  estate  or  wherever  he  could 
get  them,  while  several  small  proprietors  combined  to  furnish 
one.  This  custom  naturally  conduced  the  government  to  replace 
the  impost  in  men  by  an  impost  in  money ;  that  is,  for  the 
praebitio  tironum  was  substituted  the  aurrnn  tironiciim.  When  the 
state  had  more  need  of  men  than  money  it  exacted  the  former ; 
when  more  need  of  money  than  men  it  permitted  or  prescribed 
that  the  proprietors  should  pay  for  each  man  the  sum  determined.' 
In  Germany,  as  early  as  the  iith  centur}^  it  was  encumbent  on 
those  remaining  at  home  from  an  expedition  to  pay  a  tax.^ 
Indeed,  some  of  the  usages  so  resemble  those  adopted  in  England 
as  to  render  it  not  unlikely  that  the  English  king  received  some 
suggestion  from  the  German  custom. ^  The  device  of  two  knights 
uniting  to  support  a  third,  as  employed  by  Henry  II,  is  likewise 
exemplified  in  Germany  at  an  earlier  time.'*  In  France  the  idea 
of  commutation  is  worked  out  in  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  cen- 
turies, and  Philip  III  found  it  advisable  to  make  a  general  appli- 
cation of  it. 5  Particularly  in  the  South  of  France  did  the  nobles 
obtain  the  privilege  of  paying  money  equivalent  to  the  number 
of  knights  they  were  bound  to  furnish,  till  in  the  thirteenth 
century  the  soldiers  who  did  the  service  of  the  host  were  for  the 
most  part  soldiers  by  profession.^ 

'Coulange,  La  Gaule  Romaine,  293. 

»Baltzer,  43,  44.     Waitz,  D.  V.  G.  VI,  30.    ' 

3  Praedictus  abbas  [of  Fulda]  pecuniam  quam  pro  Itaiica  expeditione  debuit,  illi 
dimiset.     (1048.     Dronke,  359.     See  Baltzer,  43.) 

*  Compare  the  statement  of  the  English  Chronicler,  Robert  de  Torigni :  "  Preparavit 
[1157]  maximam  expeditionem,  ita  ut  duo  milites  de  tota  Anglia  tertium  pararent," 
with  the  following :  "  Si  expeditis  ....  alio,  duo  ex  illis  tercio  dent  expensas." 
(Bamberger,  Dienstrecht.     See  Baltzer,  43.) 

sLanglois,  Le  R^gne  de  Philippe  III,  365.  Daniel,  Histoire  de  la  Milice  fran- 
9aise,  I,  80. 

'  Luchaire,  Manuel,  197. 


6  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

In  England  some  forms  of  payment  in  lieu  of  military- 
service,  that  of  payment  to  a  substitute  and  payment  to  the 
crown  in  reference  to  the  fyrd,  are  visible  in  Domesday.'  The 
Abbot  of  Abingdon  hired  mercenaries  before  he  had  made 
enfeofments."  Even  the  payments  to  the  crown  in  place  of 
service  were  not  absorbed  in  the  Scutage,  for  in  the  Pipe  Roll  of 
1 172  the  Scutage  was  paid  by  those  ''qui  nee  milites  nee  denarios 
miserunty^  Private  substitution  still  went  on,  as  in  1213  scutage 
was  paid  by  those  ''qui  nee  ierant  nee  miserunt." ''  It  was  a 
general  tendency  of  the  times  to  pay  in  money  all  kinds  of 
services  due  from  a  vassal  to  a  lord.  The  Dialogus  de  Scaccario 
tells  how  the  Norman  kings  found  it  necessary  to  receive 
the  dues  at  the  treasury  in  money  instead  of  in  kind,  so  that 
by  the  time  of  Henry  I  i  s.  was  paid  as  the  value  of  an  ox,  4^. 
of  a  sheep,  etc.s  The  same  principle  was  working  more  slowly 
in  tenures  other  than  military.  Instead  of  a  fixed  amount  of 
field  labor  or  agricultural  produce,  a  money  equivalent  was 
agreeable  to  both  parties.^  These  facts  show  that  it  is  unneces- 
sary and  even  futile  to  refer  back  to  any  particular  event  or 
institution  as  suggesting  or  forming  a  precedent  for  the  Scutage. 
The  insular  position  of  England  made  it  less  liable  to  attack 
than  the  continental  kingdoms,  and  the  theatre  of  war  being  often 
remote,  it  is  not  strange  that  the  knight  tenants  preferred  to  get 
rid  of  their  obligations  of  personal  service  in  whatever  ways 
they  could. 

The  origin  of  the  institution  being  found  to  be  in  the  general 
tendency  of  the  times,  the  discussion  may  now  be  directed  to  the 
question.  What  was  the  Scutage  ?  It  is  commonly  referred  to  as 
a  "commutation  of  personal  military   service  for   money. "^      It 

'  Si  quis  in  expeditionem  summonitus  non  ibat,  totam  terram  suam  ergo  regem 
{oris  faciebat.  Quod  si  quis  remanendi  habens  alium  pro  se  mittere  promitteret,  et 
tamen  qui  mittendus  erat  remaneret,  pro  1.  solidis  quietus  dominus  ejus.  (Customs 
of  Berkshire.) 

'See  Introduction.  s  Dial.,  I,  §  7. 

3  Pipe  Roll,  18  y.  Henry  II.  *Vinagradoff,  V^illeinage  in  England. 

♦Wait.  Convent.,  II,  217. 

'"The  institution,  on  the  occasion  of  the  Toulouse  war,  of  a  commutation  of 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  THE  SCUT  AGE  7 

has  already  been  pointed  out  that  the  Scutage  was  not  the  only 
form  of  such  pecuniary  commutation  either  before  1 1 59  or 
after.  As  early  as  any  record  of  the  matter  is  found,  the  Scu- 
tage is  referred  to  as  paid  by  tenants-in-chief  to  the  crown,  and 
the  accounts  in  the  Pipe  Rolls  of  Henry  II  are  of  this  kind  ; 
but  as  soon  as  there  are  documents  to  indicate,  it  is  seen  that 
there  were  similar  relations  established  between  the  lords  and 
their  tenants.'  Whether  the  system  was  extended  from  the  for- 
mer class  to  the  latter,  or  from  the  latter  to  the  former,  it  would 
not  be  safe  to  say. 

An  accurate  definition  of  the  Scutage  is  not  easy  to  find,  for 
the  word  was  used  in  several  different  relations.  The  definitions 
given  by  historical  writers  are  apt  to  be  incomplete  or  incorrect. 
Vincent,  the  editor  of  "Lancashire  Lay  Subsidies,"  says:  "Scu- 
tage was  a  duty  or  service  arising  out  of  baronies  and  knights' 
fees 4,, which  compelled  attendance  on  the  king  as  chief  lord, 
when  he  went  forth  to  war ;  with  the  alternative  of  paying  in 
lieu  of  service  for  each  knight's  fee  a  sum  of  money  varied  in 
amount  from  time  to  time  as  necessity  might  require."  This 
definition  is  quite  inaccurate  in  confusirig  the  personal  service 
and  the  money,  payment  under  the  same  name.  A  tenant,  how- 
ever, mj^ht  hold  in  esaiage,  with  obligations  to  pay  scutage  with- 
out bein^  a  knight  or  ever  owing  personal  service.  The  state- 
ment is  inj:ornplete  in  that  it  does  not  allow  for  the  fact  that 
the  various  aids  levied  upon  knights'  fees  for  knighting  the 
eldest  son,  marrying  the  eldest  daughter,  and  ransoming  the 
king's  person,  were  also  called  Scutage.  To  be  true  to  all  the 
facts  one  must  make  the  definition  somewhat  broad  and  leave 
some    points  to    be   brought  out  by  a   further  discussion.     The 

personal  military  service,  for  a  money  payment  termed  Scutage."  (Tas.-Langmead, 
97.     Stubbs,  C.  H.,  I,  493.) 

'  The  Pipe  Rolls  indirectly  give  a  little  testimony  on  this  point.  Thus,  the  church 
of  Canterbury  regularly  owed  the  king  60  knights.  But  after  the  quarrel  with  Becket 
arose,  and  all  the  incomes  from  the  lands  of  Canterbury  were  taken  into  the  king's 
hands,  the  scutage  from  the  archbishoprick  in  1 166  was  that  arising  from  84^4^  knights' 
fees.  Showing  that  if  the  archbishop  were  in  his  place  he  would  have  taken  scutage 
from  his  tenants,  while  he  in  turn  paid  the  king.     (Pipe  Roll,  11,  Hen.  II,  109.) 


8  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

Scutage  vyas  a  form  of  tax  levied  by  a  pro-rata  assessment  of 
the  knights'  fees  of  the  kingdom.  It  was  collected  primarily 
by  the  kingj)f  all  or  part  of  his  tenants-in-chief  according  to 
the  number  of  knights  they  were  bound  to  furnish.  The  ten- 
ants-in-chief, having  rendered  their  obligations,  either  by  actual 
service  or  a  money  equivalent  in  the  form  of  a  domim,  promissum, 
fine,  or  scutage,  might  in  turn  levy  a  proportionate  rate  upon 
their  tenants.  The  double  aspect  of  the  case,  including,  first, 
the  relation  between  king  and  tenant-in-chief,  and,  second,  the 
relation  between  lord  and  sub-tenant,  is  one  of  the  utmost  impor- 
tance ;  for  the  one  was  dependent  on  the  other.  On  the  one 
hand,  the  lord  could  not  collect  from  the  sub-tenant  until  he  had 
satisfied  the  king;  on  the  other  hand,  the  lord  might  not  be 
able  to  pay  the  king  until  he  had  first  collected  from  his  men.' 
Nothing  is  more  clear  than  that  it  applied  to  military  tenures, 
principally  knights'  fees,  and  to  some  extent  serjeantries,  but 
whatever  composition  was  applicable  to  the  fyrd  was  not  scu- 
tage.^^ 

There  is  a  question  that  may  be  raised  concerning  the  legal 
status  of  the  Scutage.  It  hinges  on  the  question  whether  the 
king  had  a  right  to  call  his  English  vassals  without  their  con- 
sent into  service  outside  the  British  islands.  Liability  to  foreign 
military  service  has  been  claimed  to  be  of  doubtful  legality, 
although  before  the  thirteenth  century  the  barons  never  objected. 
The  debate  of  1197  has  been  pointed  out  as  "establishing  one 
of  the  great  principles  of  English  parliamentary  right."  3  Rich- 
ard asked  the  assembled  barons  for  300  knights  to  serve  in 
Normandy  for  a  year,  or  else  money  sufficient  to  hire  as  many 
for  that  length  of  time.  The  Bishop  of  Lincoln  made  opposi- 
tion on  the  ground   that   consent  to  the  demand  would  be  an 

'  Ricardus  de  Reinies  debet  lo  /.  de  praedicto  auxilio  [li68]  et  de  pluribus  exer- 
citibus ;  sed  nondum  potuit  justiciare  tenentes  suos.  (Pipe  R.,  30,  Henry  II,  Essex 
and  Hert.) 

"  "  The  famous  scutage,  the  acceptance  of  a  money  composition  for  military  ser- 
vice alike  for  the  Old-English  service  of  \}ivQ.  fyrd  and  for  the  newer  military  tenures." 
(Freeman,  N.  C,  V,  674.) 

3  Freeman,  N.  C,  V,  695.     Stubbs,  C.  H.,  I,  548. 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  THE  SCUT  AGE  9 

injury  to  his  church,  as  the  church  of  Lincoln  owed  service 
within  the  bounds  of  England  but  not  be3'ond.'  He  referred, 
therefore,  merely  to  the  prescriptive  rights  of  his  own  church, 
and  not  to  any  general  principle  of  law.  Other  churches  had 
similar  prescriptive  rights.  Under  John  such  claims  became 
numerous.  Thus,  1205,  the  knights  of  the  Abbot  of  St. 
Edmunds  claim  that  neither  they  nor  their  fathers  ever  had 
to  do  service  outside  of  England,  but  paid  scutage  instead.^ 
How  generally  such  prescriptive  rights  had  grown  up  among 
the  churches  cannot  be  shown,  but  it  has  been  believed  that 
the  church  contingents  were  "  for  defense,  not  defiance. "3  It 
is  true,  however,  that  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln  could  not  have 
meant  to  refuse  the  king  scutage,  as  the  church  of  Lincoln  had 
regularly  paid  it,  likewise  the  Abbot  of  St.  Edmunds  paid  scu- 
tage, and  his  knights  stated  their  obligations  in  these  terms. 
Mr.  Round  expresses  the  view  that  here  is  the  explanation  of 
the  fact  that  scutage  as  an  institution  first  a})pears  peculiar  to 
church  fiefs.*  The  explanation  cannot  be  more  than  a  plausible 
speculation.  Granted  that  such  rights  existed,  it  cannot  be  told 
when  or  how  they  ever  came  about.  They  might  have  come  to 
be  recognized  since  the  institution  of  the  Scutage  as  well  as 
before.  Among  lay  holders  there  came  to  be  arranged  obliga- 
tions on  the  part  of  sub-tenants  to  pay  scutage  and  to  render 
no  j)ersonal  service  at  all.  Such  relations  could  spring  up  only 
under  the  influence  of  the  Scutage.  Moreover,  the  claims  of  the 
Bishop  of  Lincoln  were  not  made  good,  for  he  and  other  barons 
were  made  to  suffer  temporary  forfeiture  as  for  a  default,  and 
afterwards  were  reinstated  by  paying  a  fine.  The  Abbot  of  St. 
Edmunds  feared  in  his  dilemma  that  he  also  would  lose  his 
seisin,  as  the  king  did  not  want  his  money,  but  men.^  Whatever 
may  be  argued  concerning  the  liability  of  church  fees,  the  same 
thing    would    not    necessarily    be   true    of  lay    fees.     The    oath 

'  Hoved.,  IV,  40.     Magna  Vita,  248.  3  Round,  Feud.  Eng.,  533. 

•  Ric.  Devizes,  409.  ^  Round,  ibid. 

5  Abbas   (of  St.  Edmunds)  vero   in   arcto  posito,  hinc  videns  libertatem  suorum 
militum  periclitari,  illinc  timens  ne  amitteret  saisinam  baronie  sue  pro  defectu  servicii 


lo  THE  SCUTAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

exacted  by  William  the  Conqueror  seems  broad  enough  to 
include  feudal  service  extra  regtmmJ-  Yet  after  1205,  when  Nor- 
mandy was  practically  lost  to  the  English  king,  disputes  arose 
between  king  and  nobles.  In  121 3  some  of  them  claimed  they 
did  not  owe  either  service  or  scutage  for  a  campaign  in  Poitou.' 
These  claims  were  not  made  good  during  this  epoch.  In  Ger- 
many similar  claims  were  made  by  vassals  that  they  were 
obliged  to  serve  only  within  the  kingdom  or  on  the  expedition 
to  Rome,  but,  says  Schroeder,  it  is  not  to  be  believed  that  there 
was  any  real  foundation  for  these  claims. ^ 

.To  return  to  the  legal  aspect  of  the  scutages  as  established 
in  1 1 56  and  1 1 59,  there  is  hardly  ground  for  the  notion  that  the 
scutage  of  Toulouse  was  legally  permissible  when  military  ser- 
vice could  not  have  been  exacted.'*  The  most  that  can  be  said 
is  that  during  the  century  1066-1 166,  "  in  which  the  military 
tenures  are  really  military,  as  yet  there  is  little  law  about  them. 
....  In  speaking  of  knight  service  before  Edward  I  we  have  to 
speak  not  of  a  stable,  but  an  unstable  institution."'  As  there 
was  no  particular  reason  in  law  for  establishing  the  Scutage,  the 
only  motives  for  its  systematic  adoption  will   be  found  to   rest 

regis,  sicut  contigerat  Episcopo  Lundonensi  et  multis  baronibus  Angliae,  statim 
transfretavit,  et  ....  in  primis  nullum  potuit  facere  finem  cum  rege  per  denarios. 
Dicenti  ergo  se  non  indigere  auro  nee  argento,  sed  quattuor  milites  instanter  exigenti, 
etc.     (Ric.  Devises,  409.) 

'"Statuimus  ut  omnes  liberi  homines  foedere  et  sacramento  affirment,  quod  intra 
et  extra  universum  regnum  Angliae  Wilhelmo  suo  domino  fideles  esse  velint ;  terras 
et  honores  illius  fidelitate  ubique  servare  cum  eo,  et  contra  inimicos,  et  alienigenas 
defendere."      (Sel.  Char.,  83.) 

•  1213  —  "  Dissentio  orta  est  inter  Johannem  regem  Angliae  et  quosdam  de  pro- 
ceribus  pro  Scutagio  qui  nee  ierant  nee  miserant  cum  ipso  in  Pictaviam  ....  dicen- 
tes  se  propter  in  Anglia  tenent  non  debere  regem  extra  regnum  sequi  ipsum  euntem 
nee  scutagio  juvare.  E  contra  rege  id  tanquam  debitum  exigente  eo  quod  in  diebus 
patris  sui  necnon  et  fratris  sic  fieret."     (Walt.  Covent.,  II,  217.) 

3"Nach  den  RechtsbUchern  beanspruchten  die  Vassallen,  nur  innerhalb  der 
Grenzen  des  Reiches  oder  bei  Romfahrt  verwendet  zu  werden.  Dass  dieser  Anspruch 
eine  reale  Grundlage  gehabt  haben  sollte,  ist  nicht  anzunehmen."  (Schroeder,  499.) 

*"  It  was  scarcely  fair  to  call  on  the  military  tenants  of  England  and  Normandy  to 
fight  as  a  matter  of  duty  for  the  aggrandizement  of  the  estates  of  the  Duke  of  Aqui- 
taine."     (Stubbs,  C.  H.,  I,  494.) 

sPolluck  and  Maitland,  Hist.  Eng.  Law.,  I,  231. 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  THE  SCUT  AGE  II 

upon  policy  and  expediency.  These  may  be  set  forth  in  another 
connection.  It  has  been  claimed  that  the  application  of  the 
Scutage  was  contrary  to  the  i  ith  clause  of  the  charter  of  Henry 
I,'  which  reads  : 

"  Militibus  qui  per  loricas  terras  suas  defendunt,  terras  dominicarum  car- 
rucarum  suarum  quietas  ab  omnibus  gildis,  et  omni  opere,  proprio  dono  con- 
cedo,"  etc. 

To  show  that  this  article  could  not  have  fairly  stood  in  the 
way  of  the  Scutage,  it  may  be  well  to  indicate  what  was  meant 
by  demesne  lands.  Demesne,  whether  of  the  king  or  any  other 
landlord,  was  that  portion  of  his  lands  which  he  did  not  give  out 
in  fiefs.  The  barons  generally  divided  and  sublet  their  holdings 
among  tenants  who  would  be  answerable  to  them.  The  tenant- 
in-chief,  who  was  under  obligations  directly  to  the  king,  was 
perfectly  free  to  distribute  the  weight  of  these  obligations 
among  his  vassals  as  he  chose.  He  might  (^)  create  the  exact 
number  of  knights'  fees  sufificient  to  discharge  his  service;  {b') 
he  might  create  more  than  sufificient ;  (<:)  he  might  create  less 
than  sufficient. ="  If  he  created  fewer  fees  than  were  neces- 
sary to  discharge  his  own  service  due  the  king,  the  non-infeu- 
dated  portion  became  liable  for  the  remainder.  So  in  the  cartae 
of  1166  one  of  the  inquiries  made  by  Henry  II  was  quot  milites 
super  dominium.  Of  course  it  was  not  so  easy  to  raise  knights 
from  the  unenfeoffed  lands  as  from  the  other  kind,  as  the 
Abbot  of  Ramsey,  who  had  made  no  enfeofmcnts,  afterwards 
found  out.  At  the  same  time,  barons  whose  enfeoffed  knights 
were  performing  all  the  services  that  might  be  claimed  of  them 
might  reasonably  expect  to  enjoy  the  full  profits  of  the  lands 
which  remained  over  and  above.  It  was  these  domain  caru- 
cates  only  which  were  given  exemptions.  A  tax  upon  knights' 
fees  pure  and  simple,  therefore,  could  not  have  been  objected  to 
on  the  ground  of  the  charter  of   Henry  I.    But  the  Scutage  in  its 

'  "  Its  universal  application  might  be  hindered  at  present  (i  156)  by  a  clause  in  the 
charter  of  Henry  I,  which  exempted  the  tenants  by  knight  service  from  all  pecuniary 
charges  on  their  demesne  lands."     (Norgate,  Anj.  Kings.,  I,  433.) 

'  Round,  P'eud.  Eng.,  240. 


12  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

inception  was  not  regarded  in  the  light  of  a  land  tax,  but 
appears  as  pro  militibus  or  clo?ium  militiim.  Its  basis  was  not  the 
knight's  fee,  but  the  knight's  service,  and  there  is  no  evidence  of 
any  intention  of  making  a  tax  on  fees  take  the  place  of  or  sup- 
plement the  hidage  tax.'  No  objection  to  the  impost  could  have 
been  raised  ;  none  was  ever  raised  on  the  ground  of  immunity  of 
taxation.^ 

The  Scutage  is  commonly  spoken  of  as  a  "commutation  for 
personal  service."  Commutation  was  certainly  the  basic  idea  of 
the  institution. 3  The  payment  was  made/r^?  militibus,  that  is,  so 
much  for  every  knight  owing  service.  The  conventional  service 
of  a  knight  was  40  days  in  a  year.  Now  the  wages  of  a  knight 
at  that  time  was  about  8  pence  per  day,'*  and  a  payment  of  two 
marks  would  be  exactly  the  wages  of  a  knight  for  40  days.  But 
Scutage  was  not  the  only  form  of  (compo.^ti^ftj  Hirmg  substi- 
tutes privately  still  went  on  ;  sending  money  to  the  king  con- 
tinued to  some  extent  in  the  old  way; 5  fines  were  paid  for 
default,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln  and  in  the  offer 
of  the  Abbot  of  St.  Edmunds.  A  rather  nice  question  is.  How 
far  did  the  privilege  of  commuting  service  by  scutage  extend  to 
the  subject  ?   Could  a  lord  upon  a  summons  to  war  say,  "  I  would 

'  "  The  use  of  the  word  '  scutage,'  implying  an  assessment  of  taxation  based  on 
the  knight's  fee  instead  of  the  old  rating  division  of  the  hide,"  etc.  (Norgate,  Anj. 
Kings,  I,  432.) 

"  It  marks  a  turning  point  in  the  history  of  military  tenure.  It  broke  down  the 
old  exemption  of  '  fiefs  of  the  hauberk '  from  pecuniary  taxation,  in  such  a  way  as  to 
make  the  encroachment  upon  their  privileges  assume  the  shape  of  a  favor."  {Ibid., 
459.) 

'"At  the  moment  (1156)  no  resentment  seems  to  have  been  provoked  by  the 
measure ;  its  ultimate  tendency  was  not  foreseen,  the  sum  actually  demanded  was  not 
great,  and  the  innovation  was  condoned  on  the  ground  of  the  king's  lawful  need  and 
in  the  belief  that  it  was  only  an  isolated  demand."  (Norgate,  Anj.  Kings,  I,  433.) 

'"It  is  termed  Scutage  because  such  supplying  of  it  appertains  to  the  shield, 
which  is  assumed  for  military  service."     (Bracton,  I,  283.) 

*"The  two  knights  who  bear  the  keys  have  each  8  (d.)  by  reason  of  their  knight- 
hood." (Dial.,  I,  3.)  In  the  customs  of  Berkshire  the  rate  was  20  s.  for  2  months,  which 
is  also  8  d.  a  day. 

5  In  the  Roll  for  11 72  the  Scutage  accounts  read,  "  de  Scutagio  Baronum  qui  nee 
abierunt  cum  Regi  in  Hibernia  nee  milites  nee  denarios  illuc  p'  se  miserunt."  (Pipe  R., 
18,  H.II.) 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  THE  SCUT  AGE  13 

rather  not  go  to  war,  but  will  pay  a  scutage  instead,  and  will  reim- 
burse myself  from  my  tenants,  and  as  they  are  bound  to  me  for 
more  than  I  am  bound  to  the  king,  I  can  make  a  little  profit"  ? 
Such  an  absolute  freedom  of  choice  on  the  part  of  the  subject, 
if  it  became  usual,  would  take  from  the  king  a  considerable 
degree  of  his  control  of  the  army.  Such  a  negation  of  the  royal 
authority  could  never  have  been  legally  permissible.  In  the 
Roman  Empire  the  government  exacted  men  or  money  accord- 
ing as  the  one  or  the  other  was  more  necessary.'  In  the  Rom- 
faJirtsco7istitutio7i  of  Germany  it  is  expressly  declared  that  the 
lord  is  to  decide  which  of  his  men  shall  pay  the  Herrsteuer 
and  which  shall  perform  service;^  and  in  the  Dienstrecht 
of  Coin  it  is  prescribed  that  the  Ministeriales  must  either  follow 
their  lord  into  the  field  or  pay  the  Herrsteuer,  as  the  lord  should 
determine. 3  While  in  Germany  the  lords  were  the  unit  of  the 
political  system,  in  England  the  king  always  remained  the  real 
center  of  authority.  It  will  be  found  that  he  did  not  willingly 
lose  control  of  the  feudal  host  as  a  fighting  machine.  Moreover, 
the  opportunity  of  a  composition  was  not  always  given.  It  was 
not  for  every  campaign  that  a  scutage  was  levied  at  all.  So, 
while  there  was  a  scutage  for  the  campaign  of  Ireland  in  1 171, 
there  was  none  for  the  campaign  of  Scotland  in  1 173.  It  is  true, 
as  a  rule,  that  scutages  were  levied  in  the  case  of  the  larger  cam- 
paigns, when  the  entire  knighthood  of  the  kingdom  was  sum- 
moned, but  not  in  the  case  of  smaller  expeditions,  when  only  a 
part  of  the  host  was  brought  into  the  field.  Another  most 
important  fact  to  be  remembered  in  considering  the  Scutage  as 
a  whole  is,  that  while  the  scutage  of  1159  was  announced  prob- 
ably in  advance  of  the  campaign,  the  method  which  came  to  be 
established  was  to  levy  the  money  some  time  after.  The  cam- 
paign of   Ireland  in  1171  was   accounted  for  in  the    Rolls  of  the 

'  Coulange,  La  Gaule  Romaine,  293. 

""Da  war  es  natiirlich  von  Wichtigkeit,  oh  der  Herr  Ijestimmen  konnte,  wer  von 
seinen  Mannen  ausziehen,  wer  steuern  sollte.  Die  Befugnis,  hieriiber  zu  entscheiden, 
wird  dem  Herrn  gegeniiber  seinen  Ministenalen  in  der  Komfahrtsconstitution  aus- 
driicklich  zugesprochen."     (Baltzer,  Geschichte  des  deutschen  Kriegswesen,  44.) 

3  Baltzer,  Ibid. 


14  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

following  year,  and    from   that   time   such   was  the   customary 
method  of  levying  the  Scutage.  So  that  in  1 159  the  barons  may 
Tiave  had  this   option  presented  to  them  ;  generally  they  could 
not  know  whether  they  would  be  allowed  to  offer   a   scutage 
instead  of  their  service  or  not.     The  rate  also  was  not  deter- 
mined till  after  the  defaulters  had  made  themselves  derelict,  and 
{  as  it  varied  under  Henry  II  from  i  mark  to  2  marks,  and  under 
j  subsequent  kings  it  might  be  much  more,  they  could  not  tell  in 
I  advance  how  much  they  would  have  to  pay. 

Furthermore,  it  is  evident  that  if  a  choice  between  personal 
service  and  payment  of  scutage  were  given,  the  barons  would 
everyone  have  chosen  to  pay  the  scutage,  and  the  king  in  tak- 
ing this  money  to  hire  mercenaries  would  have  been  the  loser 
thereby.  For  while  at  the  time  of  the  Toulouse  campaign  2 
marks  may  have  sufficed  to  hire  a  knight  for  forty  days,  the 
wages  of  a  knight  seems  from  about  this  time  to  have  gone 
up.  ' Tn  1 198  the  abbot  of  St.  Edmunds  hired  knights  at  the 
rate  of  3  shillings  a  day,  and  the  rate  became  higher  in  the 
thirteenth  century.  In  the  treaty  made  by  Henry  with  the 
Count  of  Flanders,  the  count  was  to  furnish  lOOO  knights  for  a 
subsidy  of  500  m.  a  year.  But  in  addition  to  the  subsidy  to  the 
count,  who  was  not  to  offer  any  obstacle  to  any  of  his  men  wish- 
ing to  serve  the  king  of  England,  the  individual  baron  was  to 
receive  30  m.  for  his  own  service  and  a  following  of  ten  knights.' 
While  2  7n.  was  about  the  cost  of  a  knight  for  forty  days  under 
Henry,  the  rate  of  scutage  was  more  often  i  mark.  It  would 
not  have  been  a  paying  business  for  the  king  to  have  dismissed 
a  soldier  for  l  mark,  when  he  would  have  to  pay  2  marks  or 
more  to  hire  another  soldier.  The  Scutage,  therefore,  considered 
as  an  institution  was  not  in  a  full  sense  a  commutation  of  service, 
although  the  idea  of  commutation  was  at  its  foundation.  The 
Icj^^al  obligations  of  the  king's  vassals  to  furnish  their  quota  of 
knights  was  not  in  any  way  altered.  If  they  neglected  the  sum- 
mons tKey  did^so_at  their  peril,  but  if  an  opportunity  was  offered 
for  them  to  pay  scutage  instead,  they  were  generally  glad  to  do  it. 

•Lib.  Nig.  IS  et  seq. 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  THE  SCUT  AGE  IS 

If  one  tries  to  discern  the  reasons  which  actuated  the  intro- 
duction of  this  institution,  he  will  have  to  consider  some  of  the 
effects  at  the  same  time,  for  causes  and  effects  are  necessarily- 
intertwined  and  act  and  react  one  upon  another.  The  reasons 
assigned  by  the  writers  of  the  time  are  : 

"  Considerans  longitudinem  et  difficultatem  viae,  nolens  vexare  agrarios 
milites  nee  burgensem  nee  rusticorum  multitudinem,"  etc.  (Rob.  de  Monte, 
1 1 59.) 

"  Mavult  enim  princeps  stipendiaries,  quam  domesticos  bellicis  opponere 
casibus."     (Dial.,  I,  q.) 

The  Latin  writers  of  the  Middle  Age  are  apt  to  follow  the 
models  of  Julius  Caesar  in  assigning  some  reason  for  every  phe- 
nomenon, even  though  it  is  a  purely  fanciful  one.  The  writer  of 
the  Dialogue,  with  all  his  array  of  facts,  is  particularly  prone  to 
speculative  discursions,  while  at  the  same  time  he  loses  no 
opportunity  for  eulogy  of  the  prince.  That  he  is  not  strictly  accu- 
rate in  regard  to  the  scutage  may  be  seen  in  the  same  sentence  as 
that  part  already  quoted,  when  he  says  that  the  scutage  is  raised 
for  defensive  war  :  "  imminente  vel  insurgente  in  regnum  hostium 
machinatione  decernat  rex  de  singulis  feodis  militum  summam 
aliquam  solvi."'  The  explanations  of  these  writers  then,  while 
they  are  not  to  be  disregarded,  are  yet  to  be  considered  in  the 
light  of  facts.  Robert  de  Monte  is  certainly  within  the  bounds 
of  truth  in  indicating  that  an  expedition  to  Toulouse  would  be 
long  and  difificult  for  Englishmen,  and  would  be  considered  a 
grievous  hardship.  To  force  them  to  go  would  have  been  "both 
unjust  and  impolitic,  if  not  absolutely  impracticable."  ="  The 
expression  agrarios  milites,  suggests  that  a  number  of  the 
knights  were  more  interested  as  proprietors  in  looking  after 
their  estates  than  they  were  in  the  dubious  fortunes  of  war. 
Giraldus,  in  writing  about  1170,  describes  a  knight  industriously 
looking  after  the  sowing  of  his  crops. 3  It  has  been  observed 
that  the  existence  of  small  aliquot  parts  of  knights'  fees  soon 
after  1 1 59    is  a    result    of    the    custom    of    commuting   military 

'Dial.,  I,  9.  3Gir.  Cam.,  IV,  229. 

*Norgate,  Anj.  Kings,  I,  459. 


1 6  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

service  by  payments.'  The  practice  of  granting  fractions  of 
knights'  fees  had  in  a  measure  begun  before  Henry  II.  Consid- 
ered in  this  light,  the  Scutage  was  even  a  necessary  expedient 
for  obtaining  the  services  due  from  a  reluctant  knighthood.  The 
church  tenants  would  naturally  be  less  inclined  to  the  pursuit  of 
war  than  other  tenants,  and  it  is  not  strange  that  the  Scutage 
in  first  appearance  is  applicable  to  church  tenants. 

Another  explanation  given  is  that  the  king  wished  to  be  inde- 
pendent of  his  barons  and  to  have  mercenaries  in  their  stead.* 
Freeman  designates  the  tax  as  "a  blow  at  feudalism  ;"3  Stubbs 
speaks  of  it  as  the  "disarming  of  the  feudal  party."'*  In  consid- 
ering these  questions  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  Scutage 
was  not  merely  an  expedient  for  a  single  year,  but  a  permanent 
institution.  Motives  of  a  temporary  nature,  which  would  have 
been  sufficient  for  making  a  single  experiment,  will  not  account  for 
its  permanent  adoption  and  continuance  for  200  years.  The 
4  causes  must  likewise  have  been  of  a  permanent  nature.  It  is 
true  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Henry  II  the  barons, 
after  the  license  of  the  previous  reign,  needed  to  be  restrained. 
Their  political  power  was  curtailed,  but  it  was  not  intended  that 
they  should  be  less  serviceable  in  the  king's  army.  In  most  of 
his  campaigns  Henry  depended  on  the  support  of  his  barons  ;  in 
the  campaign  of  Toulouse,  we  are  told,  they  took  part,  but  not 
with  many  followers. 5  The  fyrd  had  at  times  been  used  by  the 
Norman  kings  against  the  obstreperous  feudal  barons, but  hence- 
forth, being  recognized  by  Henry  II  in  the  Assize  of  Arms,  it 
was  to  act  in  support  of  the  feudal  host,  because  the  latter  was 
not  sufficient  for  all  the  military  needs.  None  of  the  Anjevin 
kings  rose  to  the  conception  of  a  modern  standing  army  of  mer- 
cenaries. Mercenary  troops  were  never  more  than  a  temporary 
makeshift.  It  will  be  shown  how  subsequent  kings  did  their 
best  not  to  break  down,  but  to  maintain  the   feudal  service.      It 

'  PoUuck  and  Maitland,  I,  246.  3  F"reeman,  N.  C..  V,  674. 

»  Taswell-Lang.,  97.  ••Stubbs,  C.  H.,  I,  214. 

s"Capitales  barones  suos  cum  paucis  secum  duxit,  solidarios  vero  milites  innu- 
meros."     (Rob.  de  Monte,  1159.) 


ORIGIN  AND  NATURE  OF  THE  SCUTAGE  17 

seems  on  the  whole  a  reasonable  belief  that,  as  there  were  so 
many  knights  averse  to  performing  their  military  service  at  any 
particular  time,  the  king  would  not  find  it  expedient  to  push 
them  to  extremities  under  penalty  for  default.  The  Scutage, 
therefore,  so  far  from  being  a  means  of  breaking  down  the  feudal 
service,  was  rather  a  means  of  maintaining  it.  It  is  a  noteworthy 
fact,  gathered  from  the  Exchequer  roll,  that  no  one  of  the  great 
lay  barons  of  the  kingdom  paid  the  scutage  of  1159.  Only  such 
of  the  large  baronies  as  were  for  the  time  in  custody  are 
accounted  for  in  this  levy.  It  may  be  questioned  from  this 
whether  they  could  have  remained  at  home  instead  of  attending 
the  expedition  when  summoned.  Those  who  took  part  in  the 
contribution  were  the  churchmen,  the  minor  tenants-in-chief,  and 
probably  the  subtenants  of  the  great  barons.  But  the  surmise 
of  Polluck  and  Maitland  is  not  correct,  that  the  king  himself 
took  the  scutage  of  the  undertenants.'  The  king  makes  no  account 
of  undertenants  until  after  the  inquest  of  1166,  and  even  then 
the  assessment  is  made  directly  upon  the  lord. 

'  "  The  king  does  not  give  his  capitales  barones  an  option  between  going  to  the 
war  and  paying  scutage,  but  he  absolves  from  the  duty  of  personal  attendance  their 
undertenants,  ....  and  instead  he  takes  a  scutage."    (His.  Eng.  Law,  1, 250,  Note  2.) 


CHAPTER    II, 


LEVIES    OF    SCUTAGE    UNDER    HENRY    II. 


There  is  not  enough  recorded  of  the  Scutage  of  Henry  I  to 
make  any  discussion  of  it  for  that  time  possible.  The  first 
scutage  of  Henry  II,  as  has  been  said,  was  in  the  second  year, 
and  was  upon  church  tenants  only.  A  levy  of  a  scutage  was 
usually  closely  associated  with  the  levy  of  some  other  kind  of 
aid,  both  because  the  scutage  alone  would  not  have  brought  in 
enough  money,  and  because  it  was  equitable  to  bring  other  classes 
besides  the  knight  tenants  under  the  taxation  Inasmuch  as  the 
various  tallages  have  sometimes  been  confused  in  the  minds  of 
writers  with  the  Scutage,  and  as  it  is  desirable  to  show  the  rela- 
tive importance  of  the  various  scutages  and  other  aids,  a  method 
of  analysis  will  be  followed  for  each  year. 

The  special  levy  for  the  second  year  consisted  in  : 

I.   An  auxilium  of  cities  and  burgs. 

By  making  a  comparison  of  the  tallages  of  a  few  towns  taken 
at  random,  as  paid  in  the  second  year  and  fifth  year  respectively, 
the  nature  of  this  levy  will  easily  be  seen  : 


London, 

Norwich,  -         -         . 

Burg  of  Geldford, 

Southwark,       .         .         - 

Huntington, 

Canterbury, 

Hertford, 

Colecester,  -         -      12/. 

Bedford,      - 

York, 

Lincoln, 

Although  the  sums  in  the  aggregate   of  the   fifth   year  were 
18 


Tallage 
paid  2d  year 

Tallage 
paid  5th  year 

120/. 

1043^- 

Som. 

414/. 

1 35.  ^d. 

1005. 

low. 

1005. 

lom. 

8/. 

10/. 

12/. 

20/. 

1005. 

Soz«. 

185.8^. 

\om. 

40W. 

40/. 

135 

/.  65.  8^/. 

40/. 

LEVIES  OF  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  II  19 

much  larger,  some  towns  paid  more  in  the  second  year,  and 
some  which  paid  in  the  second  year  did  not  pay  anything  in  the 
fifth  year.  Stafford  and  Hertford  paid  a  second  aid,  de  alio 
aicxil.,  and  Salisbury  paid  a  donum  besides  an  mixilium.  It  is 
obvious  that  the  towns  were  assessed  not  on  any  principle  of 
area,  wealth,  or  population,  but  arbitrarily  by  the  king  or  his 
officers.  The  tallage  of  cities  and  burgs  for  this  year  amounted 
to  about  450/. 

II.  An  auxilmm  or  donum  of  the  counties. 

The  kingdom  was  not  yet  reorganized,  and  certain  of  the 
counties  were  not  accounted  for  in  the  rolls  at  all :  Northumber- 
land, Chester,  Rutland,  Carlysle.  Most  of  the  counties  are 
accounted  for  in  this  aid ;  but  Norfolk,  Suffolk,  Surry,  Bucking- 
ham, Bedford,  and  Stafford  are  not.  The  accounts  are  in  some 
cases  confused,  as  the  returns  from  murder  fines  and  pleas  and 
the  donum  are  given  in  a  lump  sum.'  Where  the  amounts  of  the 
do?mm  or  auxilmm  of  the  various  counties  can  be  clearly  made 
out  they  are  reduceable  to  a  round  number  of  marks,  e.g.,  40  m., 
60  ?«.,  80  m.,  100  m.,  120  m..,  200  7n.,  400  /«.,  with  no  apparent 
basis  of  assessment.  Making  some  allowance  for  a  little  con- 
fusion in  the  method  of  recording  the  accounts,  the  sum  total  of 
the  auxilium  comitatus  was  not  much  over  1500  /. 

III.  A  sctitagium  militum. 

The  rate  was  20  s.  per  knight.  A  table  will  show  how  fully 
it  was  carried  out : 

Knights  due 

Bishop  of  London,  -         -         20 
Bishop  of  Lincoln,  -  60 

Archbishop  of  York,  -         -         20  (7) 
Bishop  of  Durham,  -  10 

Bishop  of  Chester,  -         -  15 

Bishop  of  Bath,  -  -  20 

Bishop  of  Exeter,  -  -  i?/^  (1 

Bishop  of  Hertford,  -  15 

Bishop  of  Winchester,  -         60 

Bishop  of  Salisbury,  -  32 

'  Et  Id.  vie'  redd'  Comp'  de  122  1.  13  s.  4  d.  de  murdr'  et  plac  p  Henr'  de  Essex  et 
de  dono  Comitatus.     (2,  lien.  II,  47.) 


Money  paid  2d  year 

Money  paid  sth  year 

20/. 

54/. 

80/. 

7/. 

9/.  6s.  %d. 

10/. 

20m 

15/. 

30W. 

20/. 

\om. 

i)      15/.  lOS. 

23/.  6s.  Zd. 

15/. 

56/.  lOS. 

80/. 

30/. 

THE  SCUTA  GE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 


Knights  due 

Money  paid  2d  year 

Money  paid  5th  year 

Bishop  of  Chicester, 

4 

i,OS. 

Bishop  of  Worcester, 

50 

40/.  \0S. 

Abbot  of  Chertsey, 

3 

^OS. 

4/. 

Abbot  of  Westminster,     - 

i5(?) 

7/. 

Abbot  of  Ramsey, 

4 

4/. 

\m. 

Abbot  of  St.  Albans, 

6 

\\6s. 

\im. 

Abbot  of  Glastonbury, 

40 

20/.  10^.  (incomplete) 

Abbot  of  Michclney, 

I 

20J. 

Abbot  of  Cerne, 

2  [3] 

605. 

6m. 

Abbot  of  St.  Edward,       - 

10/. 

Abbot  of  Sherburne,     - 

2 

\os. 

\m. 

Abbot  of  Middleton, 

2 

205. 

Abbot  of  Abingdon,     - 

30 

23/.    1 05. 

40/. 

Abbot  of  Burc, 

60 

60/. 

80/. 

Abbot  of  Tavistock,     - 

i5(?) 

10/.    105. 

Abbot  of  Hyde, 

20 

20/. 

40W. 

Abbot  of  Malmsbury, 

3 

605. 

Abbess  of  Wilton, 

5 

5/. 

Abbot  of  Evesham, 

5 

I005. 

low. 

Abbot  of  Pershore, 

2 

405. 

Abbot  of  St.  Augustine, 

15 

15/. 

20/. 

Abbot  of  Abbotsbury, 

I 

105. 

2m. 

Abbot  of  Winchcombe, 

2 

405. 

4w. 

Chapel  of  Bosham, 

^y^ 

7/.   105. 

Thus  most  of  the  churchmen  paid  in  full  according  to  the 
amount  of  service  due ;  but  in  some  cases  they  paid  and  were 
acquitted  for  a  less  amount,  e.g.,  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  Bishop 
of  Winchester,  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  the  Bishop  of  Worces- 
ter, the  Abbot  of  Chertsey,  etc.  It  may  be  that  the  exact 
amount  of  service  due  in  each  case  had  not  always  been  insisted 
on,  and  that  the  king  did  not  find  it  prudent  at  that  time  to  be 
too  rigid.  There  could  hardly  have  been  any  different  appor- 
tionment made  between  the  second  year  and  the  fifth  year. 
Perhaps  the  opposition  of  Archbishop  Theobald  made  some 
difference,  for  Canterbury  is  not  charged  for  any  scutage  ;  nei- 
ther were  the  bishopricks  of  Ely,  Norwich,  and  the  houses  of  St. 
Edmundsbury,  Coventry,  Shaftesbury,  St.  Benedict.  It  is  hard 
to   see  any  reason   for  these  exemptions,  as  most  of  them  cer- 


LEVIES  OF  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  II  2  1 

tainly  were  not  in  the  king's  hand  at  the  time,  and  paid  at  the 
next  scutage.  The  entire  amount  of  the  scutage  for  the  second 
year  was  less  than  500  /.  The  entire  servitintn  debiticm  from 
church  fiefs  amounted  to  784.' 

SCUTAGES    OF    THE    FIFTH,    SEVENTH,    AND    EIGHT    YEARS. 

The  scutage  of  11  59  is  commonly  given  as  the  beginning  of 
the  levy  upon  lay  tenures.  Yet  in  the  Pipe  Roll  of  the  third 
year,  for  the  single  county  of  Northamptonshire,  there  is 
record  of  a  scutage  of  the  Abbot  of  Abbotsbury  and  the 
knights  of  the  county  for  the  Welsh  war  of  that  year.  This  is 
in  fact  the  first  record  at  hand  of  a  lay  scutage,  although  it  was 
by  no  means  a  general  levy.  It  is  noteworthy  that  in  the  Pipe 
Roll  for  the  fifth  year  the  word  scutaghim  does  not  appear  but  a 
few  times.  The  entire  special  levy  for  the  year  is  under  the 
name  doiium.  It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that  domim  may 
mean  aid,  scutage,  or  tallage,^  It  was  believed  by  Alexander  de 
Swereford  that  the  entire  domim  for  the  year  was  some  kind  of 
a  scutage,  and  this  view  has  been  perpetuated  by  Madox,  Kate 
Norgate,  and  others.  It  is  plain,  however,  that  the  items  include 
several  kinds  of  dotmm,  e.  g.: 

"Id  vie  Redd'  Comp'  de  200m.  de  dono  Episcopi  Lundon." 

"Id  vie  Redd'  Comp'  de  40  m.  de  dono  militum  ejusdem  episcopi."  ^ 

I.  The   donum  militum,  or  scutage   of  2  ;«.  per  knight's  fee  :    |!)c  / 
paid  alike  by  clerical  and  lay  tenants.  , 

II.  A  domim:  arbitrarily  fixed  on  clerical  tenants-in-chief, 
irrespective  of  their  fees,  and  whether  they  paid  domim  militum 
or  not. 

III.  A  domim:  arbitrarily  fixed  on  some  of  the  non-military 
religious  houses. 

IV.  A  domim:  arbitrarily  fixed  on  towns.  These  amounts 
were  much  larger  than  those  of  the  second  year,  as  has  been 
shown  before. 

V.  A  donum.  from  some  of  the  sheriffs  : 

'Round,  Feud.  Eng..  282.  sR.  5,  II.  II,  4. 

•Madox,  His.  Exch.,  I,  625. 


22  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

This  did  not  correspond  in  amount  to  the  atixiliutn  comitatua 
of  the  former  year.      For  example  : 

Donum  of  sheriffs  Aux.  comitatus 

Devonshire,        .         .         -         .  loow.  122/.  13J.  3^/. 

Dorsetshire,            .         .         -         .  20/.  54/.     2s. 

Nothinghamshire,       -         -         -  low.  80/. 

Somerset,       -----  20W.  loom. 

Yorkshire,           -         -         -         .  ^om.  260/.  135.  4</. 

VI.  A  donum  from  the  Jews. 

VII.  A  do?mm  from  the  tnoneyers.' 

The  entire  amount  of  the  various  dona  is  calculated  to  be 
about  12000  /.,  while  the  scutage  was  about  2440  /.  The  special 
domim  from  the  clergy  produced  3130  /.,  while  the  regular  scu- 
tage of  the  clergy  was  only  iioi  m.  Thus  it  is  plain  that  the 
scutage  was  only  a  small  part  of  this  year's  special  levy.  We 
are  told  that  the  campaign  of  Toulouse  was  large  and  expensive,' 
and  it  took  all  of  these  devices  and  perhaps  more  to  pay  a  large 
army  of  mercenaries. 3  The  churchmen  complained  bitterly  of 
the  extortion  as  being  a  sheer  robbery,  contrary  to  the  ancient 
customs  and  exposing  them  to  the  arbitrary  will  of  the  king's 
ofificers.'^  A  large  share  of  the  blame  for  the  Scutage  is  laid  at 
the  door  of  the  Chancellor. ^  But  if  Becket  is  to  be  given  credit 
for  any  originality  in  this  matter,  it  is  in  regard  to  taking  from 
the  clergy  a  special  donum,  such  as  had  before  been  taken  from 
towns,  counties,  and  sheriffs.^     It  is  also  noticeable  that  both  the 

'  Round,  Feud.  Eng.,  276. 

'"Habuit  secum  viginti  millia  Brabancenorum  qui  fideliter  servierunt  illi,  et  non 
sine  magna  mercede,  quam  eis  dedit."      (Hoved.,  II,  47,  65.) 

3(1159)  "Rex  ....  magno  congregate  exercitu  obsedit  Tolosam  ;  et  quamvis 
ibi  diu  sedisset,  et  thesauros  suos  in  variis  expensis  exinanisset,"  etc.  (Hoved.,  I, 
217.) 

*  "Tolosam  belle  aggressurus,  omnibus  contra  antiquum  morem  et  debitam  liberta- 
tem  indixit  ecclesiis,  ut  pro  arbitrio  ejus  satraporum  suorum  conferrent  in  censum 
Nee  permisit  ut  ecclesiae  saltem  coaequarentur  in  hac  contributione,  vel  magis  cxac 
tione  tam  indebita."  (Sal.  Ep.,  145.) 

sNorgate,  Anj.  Kings,  I,  461. 

*"Ille  quidem  gladius  quern  in  sancte  matris  ecclesiae  viscera  vestra  paulo  ante 
manus  immerserat  cum  ad  trajiciendum  in  Tolosam  exercitum  tot  ipsam  marcarum 
millibus  aporiastis."     (Gill.  Foliot,  Ep.,  194.) 


LEVIES  OF  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  II  23 

scutages  of  11 56  and  11 59  were  paid  with  great  promptness, 
leaving  few  arrears  for  the  rolls  of  the  following  years,  whereas 
the  tallages  of  towns  and  counties  were  quite  slow  in  payment. 
The  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer  states  that  the  levy  of  1159 
was  for  an  army  of  Wales,  and  that  the  contributions  of  1161 
and  1 162  were  for  the  army  of  Toulouse.'  There  is  no  state- 
ment in  the  Pipe  Rolls  upon  this  point,  but  the  venerable  author- 
ity of  Swereford  has  been  displaced  by  collateral  evidence  that 
the  do?ium  in  question  was  for  the  Toulouse  campaign."*  Yet 
there  is  some  justification  of  the  error.  The  normal  practice  of 
the  Exchequer  for  nearly  the  whole  period  of  the  scutages  was 
to  record  them  the  year  following  their  assessment.  Swereford 
states  this  as  a  general  principle,  and  inasmuch  as  there  was 
fighting  against  Wales  in  11  57,  1158,  and  1159,  he  not  unnatu- 
rally assigned  one  of  these  campaigns  as  the  object  of  the  levy. 
There  is  still  something  further  to  be  learned  from  his  very 
error.     The  chronology  for  the  campaign  of  1 1  59  was  as  follows: 

March  22,  Henry  advertises  his  intended  expedition. 
July  1-3,  muster  of  forces  at  Agcn. 
September  22,  Henry  breaks  up  the  siege.^ 

Now  it  would  not  have  been  possible  for  the  barons  at  the 
close  of  the  campaign  to  have  gotten  their  certificates  from  the 
marshal,  to  have  made  their  levies  upon  the  subtenants,  and  to 
have  paid  the  money  at  the  Exchequer  by  the  Michaelmas  ses- 
sion, in  the  way  that  was  usual  at  a  later  time.-*  The  contri- 
bution of  this  year,  therefore,  must  have  been  an  oblation  made 
in  advance  of  the  campaign,  and  so  was  not  a  scutage  in  the 
accepted  sense  of  the  term,  and  was  very  properly  called  a 
do  num. ^ 

The  next  levy  of  this  kind  was  in  1 161,  recorded  in  the  Rolls 
of  seventh  year : 

I.  A  do?mm  of  the  towns. 

'  Red  Book,  6  and  7.  '  Eyton,  Eyres,  44-47- 

'Henry  of  Winchester  "dederat  enim  paulo  ante  quingentas  niarcas  regi  ad 
expeditionem  Tholosanam."     (Gir.  Cam.,  Ill,  357-) 

*  Hubert  Hall,  Red  Book,  clxxxv.  ^  Ibid.,  cxcii. 

\J  ^  ^-  ^'  -■  y^ V 

OP  THB  V 

IJNIVERSlTT.j 


24 


THE  SCUTAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 


2d  year 

5th  year 

7th  year 

I  20/. 

1043/. 

5OW. 

414/. 

135.  \d. 

200/. 

\oos. 

low. 

\om. 

\OQS. 

low. 

1005. 

8/. 

10/. 

10/. 

12/. 

20/. 

20/. 

1005. 

50W. 

20W. 

12/.  185.  8^. 

low. 

40W. 

40W. 

40/. 

200W. 

200W. 

40/. 

5w. 

5w. 

15/. 

5o/«. 

100;;/. 

20/. 

263/. 

135.4^. 

80/. 

4o/«. 

200W. 

1 60  w. 

A  few  examples  will   show  the  irregularity  of  these  tallages : 

London, 

Norwich,    - 

Geldford,      - 

Southwark, 

Huntingdon, 

Canterbury, 

Hertford, 

Colecester, 

Bedford. 

York,         -         -         .         . 

Lincoln, 

Chicester, 

Gloucester,    - 

Exeter, 

Northampton, 

II.  A  dontim  from  the  Moneyers. 

III.  A  scutage  of  2  ;«.  per  knight's  fee. 

The  records  of  this  scutage  show  a  more  careful  account  of 
the  smaller  tenants-in-chief.  In  the  former  year  the  sheriff 
generally  rendered  the  scutage  of  the  tenants  of  the  county  en 
bloc,  and  this  method  was  still  continued  in  some  cases,  e.  g.,  a 
sheriff  renders  account  of  106/.  for  the  knights  of  Essex  and 
Hertford.'  But  in  Norfolk  and  Suffolk,  besides  four  great 
barons,  like  the  Bishop  of  Norwich  (40  knights)  and  the  Abbot 
of  St.  Edmunds  (40  knights),  who  together  owed  the  service 
of  125  knights,  there  were  some  54  persons,  most  of  whom  owed 
service  for  one  or  one-half  fee,  owing  service  in  the  aggregate  for 
91  knights.  The  number  of  small  knight  tenants  was  at  this  time 
quite  large  and  was  destined  to  increase.  The  sum  total  of  the 
scutage  is  about  2244  /. 

It  was  customary  to  levy  a  scutage  in  reference  to  some 
definite  military  campaign  for  which  a  general  summons  had  been 
issued.  As  to  the  scutage  of  1 161,  there  is  no  direct  evidence  in 
the  Rolls  for  what  object  it  was  taken.  The  Red  Book  states  that 
this  was  the  scutage   of  Toulouse.''     Stubbs   suggests  that  the 

'R.  7-,  H.  II,  67.  =  Red  Book,  7. 


LEVIES  OF  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  II  25 

money  was  raised  to  defray  debts  incurred  in  the  Toulouse  cam- 
paign.^ This  would  have  been  contrary  to  all  customary  usage. 
If  it  was  done,  the  levy  must  have  been  either  (i)  on  all  tenants- 
in-chief  ;  (2)  on  the  same  contributors  as  in  11 59;  or  (3)  on  a 
new  set  of  contributors.^  The  assessment  was  made,  however,  in 
a  way  which  shows  no  connection  with  the  former  one.  It  seems 
to  be  true  that  after  a  brief  peace  following  the  campaign  of 
Toulouse,3  Henry  was  at  war  again  with  Louis. ■♦  It  is  evident 
from  the  Pipe  Roll  that  there  was  a  gathering  of  forces  at 
Pevensey,  as  each  of  the  tenants  owing  scutage  in  the  county  of 
Sussex  is  recorded  as  being  acquitted  for  liveries  to  the  knights 
of  Pevensey. 5 

The  next  levy  to  be  considered   is   that  of  the  eighth  year, 
1 162.      It  consisted  in  : 

I.  A  Dajiegeld.     The  last   imposition  of  this  tax,  from  which 
churches  and  religious  houses  were  "pardoned." 

II.  A  donum  or  auxilium  u\^on  tow vls.     E.g.: 


2d  year 

5th  year 

7th  year 

8th  year 

Winchester, 

- 

113/. 

25/. 

Norwich,  - 

5OW. 

414/. 

135.  4^. 

200/. 

30/. 

Chicester,     - 

5;;/. 

5;;/. 

Colecester, 

12/ 

i8j.  Zd. 

20/. 

Exeter, 

- 

20/. 

263/. 

I  3^.  4^/. 

100/. 

20/. 

Northampton,  - 

^oin. 

200W. 

1 6Qm. 

10/. 

Southwark,  - 

- 

lOQS. 

I  OM. 

1 00s. 

5/. 

London, 

120/. 

1043/- 

Cxeldford,     - 

- 

lOOS. 

lOW. 

1 0111. 

1 00s. 

Huntingdon, 

8/. 

10/. 

10/. 

8/. 

Canterbury, 

- 

12/. 

20/. 

20/. 

12/. 

Hertford, 

ioo.y. 

SOM. 

20;/!'. 

10/. 

Bedford, 

- 

10m. 

\o>n. 

40;//. 

York,       - 

40/. 

200m. 

200.'//. 

650/. 

Lincoln, 

- 

40/. 

Gloucester, 

15/. 

50;//. 

loom. 

15/. 

'  Stubbs,  Preface  Ben. 

Pet.,  xcv. 

'  Round,  Feud 

Eng., 

282. 

3"Ab  expeditione  Tolosa  reversu.s. 

brevi  quie 

vit."     (Will 

New.,  130.) 

<Eyton,  Eyres,  54. 

5  "In  liberatione  militum  de  Pevensel  .  .  .  .  et  quietus  est."    (Roll  7,  II.  II,  I3-) 


2  6  THE  SCUTAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

It  is  interesting  to  see  how  in  many  cases  former  assessments 
were  repeated  in  the  tallages  of  the  towns.  But  a  very  little 
observation  of  these  tables  will  show  that  none  of  these  dona, 
either  of  towns  or  counties,  could  have  been  a  hidage  or  carucage, 
as  Stubbs  says,'  for  there  is  too  great  irregularity  in  the  assess- 
ments. 

The  Dialogue  describes  the  method  of  assessment  of  the 
dojia  of  cities  and  burgs  as  being  made  by  the  justices  in  one 
of  two  ways  :  first,  per  capita,  that  is,  not  necessarily  a  poll  tax, 
but  rather  a  family  or  household  tax,  according  to  which  arrange- 
ment all  payers  paid  equally  ;  second,  some  fixed  amount  being 
agreed  between  the  justices  and  the  citizens.  In  the  former  case 
the  king's  officers  took  control  of  the  levy,  in  the  latter  case  the 
citizens  make  up  the  sum  in  whatever  way  they  saw  fit.^  The 
different  methods  of  assessments  are  discernible  in  the  variety 
of  figures  presented. 

III.  A  scutage  of  l  ni.  per  knight's  fee.  The  Roll  gives 
evidence  of  greater  care  in  keeping  the  individual  accounts  of 
the  minor  tenants-in-chief.  The  greater  number  of  tenants  hold 
for  I  to  5  knights.  The  levy  did  not  extend  to  as  many  knights 
as  in  ii59or  ii6i,for  the  amount  was  about  975 /.,  while  the 
do7ium  of  the  towns  was  840  /.  The  object  of  this  levy  is  not 
stated  in  the  returns.  The  Red  Book  gives  this  also  as  for  the 
army  of  Toulouse. 3  The  explanation  of  Mr.  Hall  is  a  good  one, 
that  the  expedition  of  11  59  as  well  as  succeeding  campaigns  in 
France  were  part  and  parcel  of  an  intermittent  forty-years'  war.* 
Another  expedition  against  the  King  of  France  in  the  eighth  year 
accounts  for  the  scutage. ^     But  the  further  theory,  advanced  by 

' "  This  sort  of  impost  (?.  e.,  Hidage  or  Carucage)  had  been  levied  during  Henry 
H's  reign,  generally  under  the  name  dontim,  as  supplementary  to  the  Scutage." 
(Stubbs,  Pref.  Rog.  Hoved.,  IV.) 

="  Dial,  de  Scac,  II,  13.  '  Red  Book,  7, 

*"  Belium  quoque  Tolosanum  quod  ....  per  annos  quadringenta  vires  multo- 
rum  attriverat  populorum,  eodem  tempore  (1196),  Deo  propitio,  exspiravit."  (Will 
New.,  491.     See  Red  Book,  clxxiii.) 

s"  Sequent'  anno,  qui  fuit  regni  ejus  octavus,  ira  inter  ipsum  et  regem  Francorum 
tempore  ejusdem  expeditionis  concepta,  causis  ingravescentibus  tandem  quasi  parta 
erupit.  Denique  immensis  hinc  inde  exercitibus  congregatis,"  etc.     (Will.  New.,  130.) 


LEVIES  OF  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  II  27 

Mr.  Hall,  that  there  were  but  two  campaigns  represented  by  the 
several  payments  of  1 159,  1 161,  1 162,  that  those  who  paid  in  1 1  59 
made  simpl}-  a  prepayment,  while  the  regular  scutages  were  paid 
in  1 161  and  1 162,  meets  with  some  difficulty.  There  were  some 
tenants,  such  as  the  Bishop  of  Norwich  and  the  Abbot  of  St. 
Augustine,  who  paid  in  each  of  the  three  years.  As  the  rate  was 
I  tn.  in  the  eighth  year,  those  who  paid  in  the  seventh  and  eighth 
years  instead  of  in  the  fifth  and  seventh  would  have  paid  less 
than  their  share.  It  seems,  therefore,  that  there  must  have  been 
three  distinct  campaigns  to  correspond  to  these  levies. 

SCUTAGE    OF    THE    ELEVENTH    YEAR. 

The  next  levy  was  in  the  eleventh  year,  1 165.  It  is  the  most 
curious  of  any  of  the  various  scutages  and  throws  light  on  some 
features  of  knight  tenure.     The  analysis  may  be  made  as  follows  : 

I.  A  donum  from  some  of  the  towns,  e.g.: 

York,        -         -         -         200/.      "de  exercitu  Walliae" 
London,        -         -  500W.  "  " 

Hertford,  -         -         100^.  " 

Northampton,        -  \oom.  "  " 

South  wark,       -  -  low.  "  " 

Geldford,      -         -  8w. 

Bedford,  -         -         2ow.  "  " 

Gloucester,  -  40/.  "  " 

Tedford,  -  66s.  M. 

II.  Certain  mysterious  sums  which  have  been  a  puzzle,'  but 
are  found  to  be  multiples  of  155.  3<^.,'^  ^-  g-i  1 1-  I2.y.  6d.,  15/.  5i'., 
45.y.  9^.,  38/.  2s.  6d.,  114m.  55.,  152/.  io.f.,  228/.  15^.,  etc.  Some- 
times these  amounts  are  designated  " de  exercitu  Walk,"  but  they 
are  not  a  scutage,  nor  do  they  bear  any  relation  to  the  amount 
of  knight  service  due  ;  sometimes  they  are  stated  to  be  ''  de pro- 
missione  Servientium  JValie."^  They  are  plainly  a  donum  inde- 
pendent of  scutage  for : 

'  "  The  sums  paid  de  promissiotie  sua  hath  made  me  hesitate.  Perhaps  it  may 
not  be  much  amiss  to  say  that  this  payment  when  made  by  laity  was  a  Donum,  and 
when  made  by  ecclesiastical  persons  was  a  Donum  Praelatorum."  (Madox,  His.  Exch., 
I,  582.) 

=  Round,  Feud.  Eng.,  282.  3  R.  i  j,  74. 


28  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 


Knights  due 

s 

Icutage 

De  promissione 

i.hj 

•ear 

nth  year 

Bishop  of  Bath, 

20 

66/.  55. 

Bishop  of  Lincoln,     - 

60 

152/.  \OS. 

Abbot  of  Gloucester, 

38/.  IS,  6d. 

Earl  of  Gloucester, 

- 

228/.   155. 

Bishop  of  London,  - 

20 

13/. 

65. 

8^. 

1 1 4w.  ss. 

Bishop  of  Salisbury,     - 

-        32 

76/.  5^. 

Abbot  of  Malmsbury, 

3 

30/.    105. 

Earl  of  Warwick,    '- 

76/.  5^. 

The  I  5  5.  3  d.  was  plainly  the  unit  of  pay  for  a  serjeant,  and 
the  only  possible  term  of  service  for  such  pa}' would  be  one-half 
a  year,  or  183  days  at  i  d.  per  day.  These  sums  were  paid  by  a 
great  number  of  persons,  both  great  tenants  and  small  tenants, 
lay  and  clerical.  Thus  the  magnates  paid  for  50,  lOO,  150,  200, 
or  300  Serjeants,  while  small  tenants,  some  owing  knight  service 
and  others  not,  paid  for  a  number  of  from  i  to  5.  These 
accounts  are  given  intermixed  with  the  scutages,  but  the  same 
persons  did  not  pay  for  both  knights  and  Serjeants,  except  in  the 
case  of  the  Bishop  of  London.^  The  amount  thus  recorded  is 
about  2676  /.,  which  is  larger  than  an}-  single  kind  of  contribution 
thus  far  considered,  except  ihe.  domim  oi  ecclesiastics  in  1159. 
There  was  probably  no  particular  basis  of  assessment  to  deter- 
mine for  how  many  Serjeants  one  should  pay  any  more  than  in  the 
case  of  the  other  dona  that  have  been  discussed.  The  Bishop  of 
Chicester  who  owed  only  2  knights  paid  for  200  scrvientcs. 
While  these  oblations  were  theoretically  voluntary  contributions 
to  the  King,  if  a  tenant  did  not  do  what  was  expected  he  might 
be  amerced.  The  Abbot  of  St.  Edmunds  made  no  proffer  of 
scutage  in  the  eighth  year  nor  of  the  promissiim  in  the  eleventh 
year,  and  in  the  latter  year  he  is  entered  "in  Misericordia 
200  m." 

III.  Other  sums,  designated  de  cxercitu,  or  dc  militibus,  which 
prove  to  be  a  scutage  of    I  m.  per  fee,  although  this   scutage   is 

' "  Epis'  Lond'  redd'  Comp'  de  13I.  6s.  8d.  de  Servicio  militum. 
Id'  redd'  Comp'  de    1 14  ni.  5s.  de  promissione  Servientium   Walie."     (R.  11,  H. 
II,  19.) 


LEVIES  OF  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  II  29 

not  acknowledged  in  the  Red  Book.'  Those  who  paid  for  knights 
did  not  as  a  rule  pay  for  Serjeants.  Thus  the  Bishop  of  Dur- 
ham rendered  7  /.  ^s.Z  d.  for  his  ten  knights,  while  the  Bishop 
of  Chicester  with  two  knights  paid  76  /.  5  s.  for  lOO  Serjeants. 
The  scutage  of  this  year  throws  light  upon  a  certain  question  of 
events.  From  passages  in  the  Pipe  Roll  it  is  plain  that  the 
service  exacted  in  1165  was  more  than  that  of  the  usual  forty 
days,  e.  g.: 

"Comes  Hugo  redd'  Comp  '  de  227/.  et  10 s.  de  Militibus  et  Servientibus 
exercitus  Walie  de  quarta  anni."     (R.  11,  p.  7.) 

"  Et  5  militibus  euntibus  in  exercitu,  13/.  65.  8^."     (R.  11,  p.  7.) 

For  five  knights  the  above  amount  represents  a  service  of 
80  days  at  the  usual  rate,  8  d.  per  day.  Indeed,  there  is 
evidence  of  two  separate  armies  for  Wales  and  two  separate 
scutages,  e.  g.: 

"  Id  '  vie  '  redd  '  Comp '  de  8  m.  de  secundo  exercitu."     (R.  11,  p.  25.) 
"  Ric  de  Wivill '  redd  '  Comp  '  de  i  m.  de  ii  summonicionibus   exercitus.' 
(R.  II,  pp.  52  and  62.) 

Richard  held  half  a  fee,  paying  i  m.  in  the  fourteenth  year."' 

"Id'  redd'  Comp*  de  113 1,  de  milit'  de  Archiepatu  (Canterbury)  de  ii 
exercitibus."     (R.  11,  p.  109.) 

113/.  is  the  amount  that  the  84^  knights  belonging  to  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  would  render  by  paying  the  scutage 
of  I  m.  twice. 

These  facts  are  in  accord  with  the  testimony  of  Bnit y  Tywys, 
who  says  that  Henry  first  "moved  an  army  with  extreme  haste 
and  came  to  Rhuddlam,  and  proposed  to  erect  a  castle  there, 
and  stayed  there  three  nights.  After  that  he  returned  into  Eng- 
land and  collected  a  vast  army."^ 

As  neither  the  Ann.  Cambr.  nor  Gerald  makes  any  mention  of 
the  earlier  Ruddlam  expedition,  the  testimony  of  Brut  has  been 
thrown  out  by   Kate   Norgate.^     As  the  earlier  expedition  was 

'"Quod  quidem  auxilium  (of  I165)  in  numero  scutagiorum  nolui  apponere,  quo- 
niam  probata  summa  auxilii  propter  hoc  non  probatur  numerus  militum  vel  serjan- 
torum."     (Red  Book  of  Exch.,  9.) 

'K.   14,  p.  90.  3 See  Norgate,  Anj.  Kings,  II,  180,  note. 


30  THE  SCUTAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

hasty  and  not  attended  by  a  general  summons,  so  the  minor 
scutage  of  the  year  did  not  amount  to  much,  as  very  few  made 
any  such  payment.  While  the  dojium  for  Serjeants  was  on  a 
basis  of  six  months' service  for  each  serjeant  "promised,"  the 
actual  campaign  was  not  over  eighty  days  or  three  months,  as 
may  be  inferred  from  some  passages,  and  may  be  demonstrated 
from  the  following: 

"Comes  Ric'  redd'  Comp'  de  76 1.  5  s.  In  pardon  '  pro  breve  Regis 
eidem  comiti,  76. 1  5  s.  propter  20  milites  et  40  servientes  quos  duxit  in  exer- 
citu  cum  Rege."     (R.  11,  p.  3.) 

The  only  explanation  for  this  item  is  on  the  ground  that  the 
knights  and  Serjeants  did  actual  service  for  three  months.' 

Another  matter  of  interest,  indicated  in  the  Rolls,  is  the 
importance  attached  to  the  Serjeants  in  the  army  of  this  year. 
This  was  before  the  Assize  of  Arms  of  1 181,  but  the  "promise  of 
Serjeants"  was  used  not  merely  as  a  money-making  device.  The 
passages  quoted  show  that  whoever  conducted  knights  or  Ser- 
jeants in  the  campaign  was  exempt  from  either  payment.  It  is 
noticeable  in  the  Pipe  Rolls  that  in  whatever  counties  there  hap- 
pens to  be  an  aggregation  of  soldiers,  those  counties  are  imme- 
diately called  upon  to  some  extent  for  the  necessary  expenses 
of  those  soldiers.  So  where  the  king  maintained  castles,  a  part 
of  the  revenue  due  from  the  Sheriff  was  paid  not  directly  into 
the  Exchequer,  but  was  accounted  "m  operatioyie  caste lloru?n,"'^ 
or  in  liveries  for  the  garrisons,  "m  liberatione  castella7wnimy^ 
In  1 161  the  scutage  money  from  Sussex  was  not  turned 
into  the  treasury,  but  was  laid  out  in  "liveries"  of  the  knights 
assembled  at  Pevensey.'*  In  1163  Shropshire, 5  Hertfordshire,^ 
Gloucestershire, 7  Worcestershire^  paid  liveries    toward  military 

'  I  knight  =  8  Serjeants.  76/.  5j-.  is  the  wages  of  100  Serjeants  for  six  months  or 
200  Serjeants  for  three  months.  The  actual  number  of  Serjeants  was  40.  200  —  40 
=  160.     160  Serjeants  =  20  knights,  according  to  the  hypothesis. 

»  R.  8,  pp.  39,  49,  so,  S3,  etc.  "  R.  7,  p.  13.  «  R.  9,  p.  7. 

3R.  8,  p.  20.  5R.  9,  p.  3. 

^  "  In  Liberatione  militum  et  servientum  in  exercitu  Walie  p'  Willm  de  Bellocampo, 
70/.  9  J.  I  dr     (R.  9.  P-  9-) 

*"  In  Munitione  portata  in  Wal,  39  /.  3  j.  4  </."     (R.  9,  p.  4.) 


LEVIES  OF  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  11  31 

operations    in    Wales.       In    1165   the   sheriff  or  other  party  is 
accredited  with  paying  liveries  to  a  large  number  of  Serjeants,  e.g. : 

"  Et  300  servientibus  5  1.  7  s.  5  d.  et  60  servientibus  apud  Surwardin 
61."  (R.  II,  p.  90.)  Et  item  300  servientibus,  p'  Pasca  69  1.  18  s.  7  d."  {Ibid.) 
"EtWalto  de  Bellocampo  13  1.  10  s.  lod.  ad  lib'  servientum  de  Bergeveni.' 
(R.  1 1,  p.  loi.) 

The  liveries  in  these  cases  were  paid  for  Serjeants,  and  not 
for  "knights  and  Serjeants,"  as  in  1163.  It  had  been  found  by 
experience  as  early  as  William  Rufus  that  infantry  was  more 
serviceable  than  cavalry  for  operations  in  Wales.'  The  use  of 
Serjeants  as  an  integral  part  of  the  military  force  in  the  king- 
dom was  to  assume  a  greater  relative  importance.  The  obliga- 
tions to  such  service  were  defined  in  the  Assize  of  Arms,  1181. 
The  relative  value  of  a  knight  and  a  serjeant,  which  in  1 165  was 
considered  to  be  in  the  ratio  of  8  to  i,  was  finally  that  of  2  to  i. 
The  amount  of  the  scutage  for  this  year  would  be  difficult  to  com- 
pute with  any  confidence,  because  the  accounts  in  the  Rolls  are 
generally  not  designated.  But  it  would  be  safe  to  say  that  the 
scutage  was  not  as  large  as  the  dofmm  for  Serjeants.  The  prin- 
cipal thing  to  be  remembered  in  this  connection  is  that  the 
donum  of  Serjeants  was  not  a  scutage  or  anything  similar  in  prin- 
ciple. 

IV.  A  few  other  items  of  revenue,  which  are  not  of  much 
consequence  in  themselves,  but  which  further  illustrate  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  occasion  of  an  expedition  might  call  for  most  any 
kind  of  levy.  While  not  to  the  same  extent  as  in  11  59,  a  few 
of  the  moneyers  paid  a  tallage,  and  in  one  instance  the  money 
is  stated  specifically  to  be  for  the  sake  of  the  army.^ 

nth  year  5th  year 

Moneyers  of  York,        -         -  -         %oi>i. 

Moneyers  of  London,       -         -  -     40w.               62;;/. 

Moneyers  of  Northampton,    -  -        100^. 

Moneyers  of  Norwich,       -         -  -     \os.               50W. 

'Freeman,  William  Kufus,  II,  no. 

'Monetarii  Lund'  redd'  Comp'  de  40  m.  de  Assisa  ejusdem  exercltus.  (R.  n,  p. 
33-) 


32  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

A  singular  item  occurs  in  which  the  socmen  of  a  certain  Earl 
pay  a  do  mem  .^ 

AID    FOR    THE    MARRIAGE  OF    THE    DAUGHTER. 

The  levy  of  1168  was  the  aid  to  marry  the  king's  daughter 
The  impression  has  been  given  by  certain  writers  that  this  aid 
as  well  as  others  of  a  similar  kind  was  raised  purely  by  an  assess- 
ment upon  knights'  fees.  Says  Kate  Norgate,  "the  aid  itself 
(of  I168)  was  a  strictly  feudal  impost,  assessed  at  one  mark  on 
every  knight's  fee."^  Stubbs  tells  only  a  part  of  the  facts  when 
he  takes  no  notice  of  any  part  of  this  levy  but  the  one  mark  on 
the  knight's  fee.3  It  will  be  found,  however,  that  the  aid  was 
made  up  of  several  different  kinds  of  levy,  very  much  as  in  the 
other  years  cited. 

I.  Aid  from  Cities,  Burgs,  and  Villes. — The  aggregate  sum 
taken  from  the  towns  was  larger  than  ever  before.  Not  only 
were  the  items  from  the  towns  separately  larger  than  before 
on  the  average,'*  but  the  tallage  was  the  most  general  in 
application  of  any  of  the  levies  of  Henry  II,  The  assess- 
ments of  the  towns  were  made  in  connection  with  a  judicial 
iter,^  so  that  it  was  not  possible  to  have  the  returns  from 
all  the  counties  of  England  in  the  same  year.  The  aid  burgo- 
rum  et  villanim  of  the  counties  Warwick  and  Leicester,  Buck- 
ingham and  Bedford,  Shrop,  Worcester,  Hertford  in  Wales, 
Stafford,  Gloucester,  Northumberland,  Berks,  Oxford  is  recorded 
in  the  Rolls  of  1 169.     As  may  be  seen  from  the  table,  in  former 

'  Sochemanni  Comitis  Conani  redd'  Comp'  de  loo  m.  de  Dono.     (R.  Ii,  p.  37.) 

'Norgate,  Anj.  Kings,  II,  125. 

3 "The  assessment  was  one  mark  on  the  fee."    (Stubbs,  C.  H.,  I,  509-) 


<  Colecester, 

•         -         -      32/. 

Huntingdon, 

low. 

Exeter, 

200W. 

Canterbury,     - 

52/.  13^.  4</. 

Northampton, 

-  200W. 

Bedford, 

30W. 

Southwark, 

19///. 

York, 

London,      - 

-     617/.  i6j.  ■id. 

Lincoln, 

-  233/.  bs.  8d. 

Geldford, 

9/.  bs.  SJ. 

Gloucester, 

61/.  bs.  id. 

sThe  accounts  are  often  under  a  heading  : 

"Nova  Placita  et  Novae  Conventiones  de  Auxil'  ad  maritand'  filiam  Regis  ;  "  the 
fines  and  amerciaments  being  given  in  connection  with  the  Aid. 


LEVIES  OF  SCUTAGE  UNDER  HENRY  II  33 

years  the  towns  were  generally  tallaged  for  a  round  lump  sum, 
and  while  the  amount  in  the  case  of  a  single  town  was  not  the 
same  every  year,  an  assessment  of  this  kind  was  apt  to  recur. 
In  1 1 68  a  different  method  was  applied.  Prominent  men  of  the 
town,  like  the  reeve,'  in  many  cases  paid  individually,  and  even 
where  the  community  contributes,  men  also  give  individually.^ 
Counting  what  came  from  individual  contributions  of  towns 
as  well  as  from  the  collective  "burgers"  and  "men"  of  the 
various  towns,  the  entire  amount  collected  in  the  2  years  was 
about  4549/I. 

II.  The  Scutage  of  i  m.  per  Knights  Fee. —  In  the  various 
levies  of  the  scutages  hitherto  there  has  been  a  portion  of 
the  knight  tenants  who  performed  their  obligations  by  per- 
sonal service,  and  a  portion  who  paid  the  tax.  In  the  case 
of  the  aid  for  the  marriage  of  the  king's  daughter  such  a 
question  is  eliminated.  The  demand  naturally  fell  upon  all  ten- 
ants in  capite  ancj  it  may  be  expected  that  as  a  tax  on  knights' 
fees  it  applied  more  extensively  than  any  other  levy  of  Henry 
II.  A  number  of  the  greater  barons  appear  in  the  Roll  contrib- 
uting toward  this  aid,  who  did  not  make  any  payments  in  the 
previous  scutages.  More  may  be  learned,  therefore,  from  the 
records  of  1168  concerning  knights'  fees  than  those  of  any 
other  year.  The  payment  of  i  m.  per  fee  as  aid  may  justly  be 
called  scutage,  for  while  auxilium  is  the  word  commonly 
employed  in  the  roll,  scutagium  is  also  used. 3 

Before  the  aid  of  1168  was  taken  a  new  method  of  assess- 
ment in  regard  to  knights'  fees  had  been  introduced.  It  has 
already  been  described  in  this  essay  how  the  barons  owed  the 
king    for   their   estates    their   certain    quotas    of  knight    service, 

"'Rob'  prepositus  de  S.  Martino  redd'  Comp'  de  i  m.  de  eodem  auxilio."  (R.  14, 
P-  I55-) 

»In  Waltham  :     "Rad'  le  Napier  redd'  Comp'  de  20  s.  de  eodem  auxilio." 

"Commune  ville  reddt  Comp'  de  40  s.  de  eodem  auxilio." 

"Ceteri  homines  ejusdem  ville  reddt  Comp'  de  4  1.  3  s.  4  d.  de  eodem  auxilio.'* 
(R.,  14,  p.  40.) 

3  Abbas  de  Certesia  debet  I  m.  de  Scut'  ad  maritandam  tiliam  Regis.  (Pipe  Roll, 
I,  Ric.  I.,  218  <  Pipe  Roll,  14,  H.  II.,  26.) 


34  THE  SCUTAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

which  were  the  result  of  common  understanding  and  tradition  ; 
how  the  barons  fulfilling  their  obligations  to  the  king  could  sub- 
divide their  estates  as  they  saw  fit,  whether  they  enfeoffed  more 
knights  than  they  themselves  owed,  or  fewer  knights,  or  the 
same  number.  Those  holding  the  largest  estates  had  the  best 
opportunities  to  create  fees  far  beyond  what  they  owed  the 
king,  so  that  when  the  Scutage  was  collected  they  would  derive 
a  certain  profit  from  the  surplus  fees.  The  archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury regularly  owed  6o  knights,  but  in  1165,  when  the  arch- 
bishoprick  was  "in  custody,"  and  the  king  derived  all  the 
profits  from  the  lands,  the  scutage  returned  was  that  of  84)4^ 
knights.'  With  a  view  to  putting  an  end  to  such  special  advan- 
tages which  the  barons  were  deriving  from  the  system,  and  to 
bring  these  advantages  to  the  side  of  the  crown,  the  king,  1 166, 
had  issued,  probably  through  the  agency  of  the  sheriffs,  inquir- 
ies to  each  of  the  barons  as  to  how  many  knights  they  each  had 
enfeoffed.     As  Mr.  Round  has  paraphrased  these  inquiries  : 

i)  "How  many  knights  had  been  enfeoffed  before  the 
death  of  Henry  I  ?" 

2)  "  How  many  have  been  enfeoffed  since?" 

3)  "How  many  (if  any)  remain  to  be  enfeoffed  to  complete 
the  'service'  due  from  the  fief?" 

4)  "  What  are  the  names  of  your  knights  ?  "  "" 

The  barons,  not  knowing  the  object  of  these  inquiries, 
answered  for  the  most  part  in  good  faith,  and  sent  their  answers 
in  the  form  of  cartels.  Such  cartels  were  not  altogether  a  new 
thing,  as  one  may  be  seen  for  about  the  year  1125,  naming  all 
the  tenants  of  a  manor. 3  The  demand,  therefore,  in  1166  did 
not  occasion  any  surprise. 

The  king  did  not  altogether  discard  the  old  system  of  assess- 
ment based  on  the  scmitium  dcbitum,  or  uniformly  substitute  the 
new  one  based  on  the  actual  number  of  fees  created,  but 
selected  in  every    case  whichever  of  these  two  systems  told  in 

'  R.  II,  p.  109. 

*For  the  discussion  of  the  Cartae,  see  Round,  Keud.  Eng.,  236. 

3Chron.  Petrob.  (Cam.  Society),  Appendix. 


LEVIES  OF  SCUTAGE  LNDER  HENRY  II 


35 


his  own  favor  and  against  the  tenant  of  the  fief.'  The  barons 
were  surprised  and  showed  some  chagrin  at  being  obliged  to 
pay  for  all  the  knights'  fees  belonging  to  them.  The  church- 
men were  permitted  to  make  their  payments  under  a  mild  form 
of  protest  recorded  in  the  following  way.  An  amount  such  as 
one  was  accustomed  to  pay  according  to  the  old  servitium  debi- 
tum  was  designated  for  knights  '' quos  recognoscit ;"  what  had 
to  be  paid  beyond  this  was  for  knights  '^ guos  non  recognoscit 
se  dcbere  Regi."''  As  a  rule  the  first  item  was  paid  with  prompt- 
ness, while  the  second  fell  in  arrears.  In  some  cases  the  new 
method  did  not  make  any  difference  in  the  amounts  paid,  while 
in  others,  like  the  Bishop  of  Durham,  it  made  a  great  deal.     E.  g.: 


Bishop  of  London, 
Bishop  of  Lincoln, 
Bishop  of  Ely,    - 
Archbishop  of  York, 
Bishop  of  Worcester, 
Bishop  of  Chester, 


\  113/.  6s.  Zd.  q.  recognoscit 
\  i/.  175.  gd.  q.  non  recognoscit 

40/. 
\  28/. 
^  40W. 

2otn. 

32/.  175.  \d. 

10/. 


Bishop  of  Exeter, 

j  10/.  65.  8^. 
j  11/.  165.  i.d. 

Bishop  of  Winchester,     - 

Uo/. 
9/.  135.  id. 

Bishop  of  Chicester,    - 

\  lis.  lod. 

Bishop  of   Durham, 

j    lOJ/l. 

I   40/.    125.    2d 

Archbishop   of    Canterbury 
(in  custody),    - 

\    56/.    105. 

Abbot  of  Cerne, 

S  2m. 
)  8;«. 

Bishop  of  Salisbury,    - 

j  21/.  6s.2.d. 
)  My.  Ad 

'  Round,  Feud.  Eng.,  236. 

""Archiepc  Ebor'  redd'  Comp'  de  20  m.  de  eodem  auxil'  pro  20  militibus  quos 
recognoscit  se  debere  Regi.     In  thro  liberavit.     Et  quietus." 

"  Id  deb  23^m.  pro  23^  Mil'  quos  non  recognoscit  se  debere  Regi."  (R.  14,  88.) 


36  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 


Bishop  of  Bath, 
Abbot  of  St.  Edmunds, 


40»z. 


Abbess  of  GlastoHbury,    -  \  f 

The  lay  barons,  so  far  as  they  were  affected  by  the  new 
arrangement,  made  their  payments,  first,  for  old  enfeofments, 
that  is,  land  enfeoffed  before  the  death  of  Henry  I  ;  second,  for 
new  enfeofments,  or  lands  enfeoffed  since  that  time.  A  few 
examples  will  illustrate  how  in  some  cases  the  new  enfeofments 
exceeded  the  old,  while  in  others  there  was  little  difference  : 

c..  J    r>  ,,  \  30/.  \os.  Zd.,  Old  Enf. 

Simon  de  Bellocamp,  -         -      j  ^ ^^^    ^^   ^^^  ^^^  „ 

William  iMalduit,  -         -  j  ^^J"  ^^• 

Earl  Of  Clare.  -         -         -      j  94^_     ^^     ^^ 


William  de  Muntfichet, 


{  31/.   105. 

i  gs.  4^. 
Earl  William,  -         -         -         qSw.  35.  5^. 


Earl  of  Warwick, 
Roger  de  Mobray, 


68/.  4J.  5^. 
2m. 

58/.  165.  8d. 
7/.  155.  6d. 


,,           J     T  \  42A  los.  lod. 

Henry  de  Lacy,      -  -         -          j  ^^^     g^     g^_ 

Earl  of  Gloucester,  -         -         261  )4r/i. 

Earl  Reginald,       -  -         -             215/;/.  4s.  sd. 


Earl  Hugh  of  Chester, 
William  de  Muntfichet, 
Walter  fil  Robert,      - 


80/.  70s. 
37  a  M. 

\  21 1.   105. 
/  gs.  ^d. 
\  \2/.    6s.  8d. 
}  43S-  W. 


Maurice  de  Creon,  -         -  j  A' 


Earl  Simon, 
Roger  de  Mobray, 
Honor  of  Toteneis, 


45/.  13^-  9(^- 
gl.  los.  id. 

58/.  165.  M. 

7/.  155.  td. 

37/.    \s.  lod. 

12/.  155.     id. 


LEVIES  OF  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  II  37 

In  most  cases  the  amount  that  was  paid  for  old  enfeofments 
was  fully  as  great  as  what  had  been  paid  before  for  the  servitiwn 
dcbitum,  or  greater,  while  what  was  paid  for  new  enfeofment  was 
an  increment  to  the  advantage  of  the  crown.'  Yet  this  was  not 
true  in  every  instance,  for 

Simon  de  Bellocamp  paid  36/.  iith  year;  and  in  \  30/.     105.  Zd.  old  enfeof. 
14th  year         ......         \^  1065.  Zd.  new     "     ' 

Earl   Simon    paid    61/.    nth    year;    and    in    14th  j  45/.  135.9^/. 
year \     ql.  \os.  z^d? 

Robert  "filius  Regis"  paid  loow.  nth  year;  and  j  61/.  175-.  \d. 
in   14th  year \  135.  4^^'-'' 

The  servitium  debihim  of  the  first  two  men  cannot  be  deter- 
mined with  accuracy,  but  the  servitium  debihim  of  Robert  is  given 
as  100  knights  in  the  list  compiled  by  Round. ^  Simon  de  Bello- 
camp reported  in  his  Carta  53yV  knights,^  while  in  1165  he  paid 
for  54  knights.  Earl  Simon,  in  his  Carta,  did  not  report  any 
knights  on  domain.  These  must  be  taken  as  exceptions  to  the 
statement  of  Mr.  Round  that  the  king  was  in  every  case  the 
gainer  by  the  new  arrangement. ^  The  question  of  paying 
according  to  the  number  of  fees  created  came  up  only  in  refer- 
ence to  the  greater  barons  and  churchmen  who  were  in  a 
position  to  sublet  their  lands  on  an  extensive  scale,  but  most  of 
the  landholders  of  the  kingdom,  who  held  not  more  than  sev- 
eral fees  each,  were  not  affected  by  the  new  arrangement  at  all. 
They  paid  for  their  one,  two,  or  more  knights  as  before. 

Most  of  the  barons  drew  up  their  cartae,  showing  the  number 
of  fiefs  created  on  their  estates  and  the  number  of  knights  siiper 
domituum,  willingly  and  carefully,  and  these  returns  were  kept  in 

'Robert  de  Stutevill  in  1165  paid  lots.  id.  (R.  11,  p.  50).  In  1168  he  paid  lobs. 
Sd.  old  enfeofment,  and  2od.  new.     (R.  14,  p.  88.) 

„   ,         ,,         .  ,  .,   „,  /^  D   ^     ■  ,0     (  7/-  I2J.  8(/.  old  enfeof. 

Robert  Marmion,  1165,  paid  8/.  (R.  n,  p.  83);  in  1168,    j  ^^  ^^^^,      .. 

»R.  14,  p.  II.  s  Round,  Feud.  Eng.,  253. 

3R.  14,  p.  65.  'Lib.  Nig.,  201. 

••R.  14.  p.  127. 

7  Instead  of  adhering  to  the  old  assessment,  or  uniformly  substituting  a  new  one 
based  on  the  fees  actually  created,  the  crown  selected  in  every  case  whichever  of  these 
two  methods  told  in  its  own  favor  and  against  the  tenant  of  the  fief.  (Feud.  Eng., 
242.) 


38  THE  SCUTAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

the  Exchequer  as  the  basis  for  future  levies  of  the  Scutage.  But 
all  did  not.  Some  of  these  are  accounted  for  by  the  sheriffs  in 
the  fourteenth  year  as  knights  "qui  de  Rege  tenent  in  Capita  in 
Baillia  sua  qui  non  miserunt  Regi  Cartas  de  Tenemento  suo."^ 
Many  such  delinquents  escaped  payment  for  the  aid,  and  were 
not  made  to  pay  for  their  fees  until  the  scutage  of  Ireland  in 
1 1 72.  In  the  Roll  for  that  year,  in  the  returns  from  the  counties 
of  Oxford,  Northampton,  Buckingham  and  Bedford,  York, 
Dorset  and  Somerset,  Wilts,  Sussex,  Kent,  Lincoln,  are  special 
lists  "  de  his  qui  Cartas  non  miserunt."^  In  Dorset  and  Somer- 
set the  list  represented  payments  for  as  many  as  8  knights. 
None  of  these  were  made  to  pay  towards  the  aid  of  1168,  and 
this  may  have  been  one  of  the  points  in  which  the  sheriffs  were 
derelict,  wherefore  they  were  dismissed  from  office  in  1170. 

It  is  instructive  to  note  the  amount  of  the  scutage  as  com- 
pared with  the  tallage.  This  may  be  done  with  the  aid  of  the 
following  table  : 

Middlesex  (London), 
Buckingham  and   Bedford, 
Norfolk  and  Suffolk,  ... 

Essex  and  Hertford  (no  large  towns), 
Northampton,  .         -         .         . 

York, 

Nottingham  and  Derby, 
Warwick  and  Leicester, 
Lincoln,  .         .         .         -         . 

Shropshire,  .  -  .  . 

Cambridge  and  Huntingdon, 
Worcester,  .  .  .  . 

Hertford  in  Wal., 

Stafford, 

Gloucester, 

Devon,         .         .         .         -         . 
Dorset  and  Somerset, 

'  R.  14,  pp.  65,  90. 

3*"  Vic  non  reddidit  Compotum  de  feodis  Aliorum  Militum  de  Bailia  sua  de 
eodem  Auxilio  tiliae  R.  quia  est  in  respectu  p  Barones  donee  Rex  praecipiat."  (R.  14, 
P-  95-) 


Towns 

Kn 

ight  fees 

617/. 

165. 

8^. 

25/. 

4^. 

Id. 

*47/. 

l6:f. 

8^. 

174/. 

2^. 

8d. 

653/. 

3^- 

%d. 

447/. 

AS. 

13^. 

171/. 

55. 

Ad. 

380/. 

135. 

lod. 

200A 

135. 

Xd. 

75/. 

2^. 

3'/- 

565/. 

13^- 

Ad. 

375/. 

3^- 

id. 

171/. 

4^. 

%d. 

140/. 

13^. 

Ad. 

*27/. 

13J. 

^d. 

107/. 

165. 

Id 

311/. 

Zs. 

6d. 

255/. 

\s. 

Id 

*3o/. 

3^- 

Ad. 

*3 

655. 

Xd 

119/. 

l6:f. 

%d. 

203/. 

16^. 

gd. 

*72/. 

6^. 

%d. 

52/. 

13^. 

gd. 

*2I/. 

13^- 

Ad. 

116/. 

lod 

*44/. 

19^. 

lod. 

84/. 

*I62/. 

45. 

Ad. 

218/. 

IS. 

lod. 

257/. 

9^. 

Sd. 

452/. 

2S. 

2d. 

330/. 

4^. 

(yd. 

285/. 

y. 

Sd. 

»R 

..,  18 

y. 

LEVIES  OF  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  IT  39 

Wilts, 67/.    6s.  Zd.              136/.  \y.    \d 

Northumberland,     -         -         -         -  *i56/.    6^.  8^/.                57/.  is.    c)tf. 

Hampshire, 208/.   12^.  loi/.  35.    4^/. 

Sussex, 19/.     4^.  4^,              148/.  195.  10^/. 

Berks, 24/.  48/. 

Oxford, 73/.    6s.  Zd.               ^-jl.  \-js.    gd. 

Kent, 247/.  i6s.  8d.               78/.  i6:f. 

Surrey, 47/.     6s.  3/. 

Total,  -         -  4549/-  14-f-    6^/.  4006/.     3^.     5^/. 

It  will  ht  seen  that  in  most  of  the  counties  the  tallage  of 
towns  was  larger  than  the  scutage.  Where  the  county  was 
made  up  mostly  of  urban  population,  and  did  not  contain 
extensive  rural  districts,  as  in  the  case  of  Middlesex,  the  revenue 
from  the  towns  was  sure  to  be  more  important ;  where  there 
were  no  great  towns  and  there  was  some  earl  who  held  perhaps 
200  knights,  as  in  Gloucester,  the  scutage  predominated  ;  while 
in  an  average  district  like  Nottingham  and  Derby,  as  well  as  in 
the  entire  kingdom,  the  dom/m  from  the  towns  brought  in  the 
more  money.  It  has  been  true  in  other  years  that  the  scutage- 
was  not  as  important  as  levies  of  other  kinds,  but  the  fact  of  its 
being  so  at  this  time  is  of  more  significance. 

III.  The  aid  was  increased  by  certain  other  contributions, 
mostly  from  the  churchmen.  These  are  designated  "de  pro- 
mis  sione  sua  ad  marita?idam  filiam."     Thus  : 

Serv.  deb. 

Bishop  of  Norwich  (40  knights),  40  ?n.,  "  de  promissione." 

Bishop  of  Chester  (15  knights),  40W.,  "  de  promissione." 

Abbot  of  St.  Edmunds  (40  knights),  40  w.,  "  de  pro»iissione." 

Abbot  of  Burton  (no  knights),  40  5.,  "  de  promissione." 

Abbot  of  Gloucester  (no  knights),  40  w.,  "  de  promissione." 

Abbey  Hulm  (3  knights),  28  /.  6^.  8  ^/.,  "ad  maritandam  filiam  R."' 

Abbey  Bath  ( ),  100  /.,  "  de  assisa  facta  super  Dominia  Ep"  atus  ad 

maritandam  filiam  R." 

William  de  Bellocamp,  40  m.,  "  de  pro/nissione." 
Sheriff  of  Northumberland,  40  w.,  "  de  promissione." 

Not  all  the  churchmen  paid  these  sums,  and  those  who  did 
paid   irrespective  of  their   knights  or  whether   they  held  any  at 

•R.  14.  p.  33- 


40  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

all.  Some  of  the  institutions  making  these  returns  were  for  the 
time  in  custody,  and  William  de  Bellocamp  and  the  Sheriff  of 
Northumberland  probably  made  the  "promise"  for  establish- 
ments in  their  custody.  The  amount  gathered  from  this  source 
was  not  large. 

IV.  An  aid  from  some  of  the  moneyers,  e.  g.:  moneyers  of 
Northampton,  lo/.  (ioo.y.  in  iith  year);  moneyers  of  London, 
273^  m.  [62}^  m.  in  5th  year) ;  moneyers  of  Norwich,  10  m.  [40  s. 
in  iith  year).  Yet  all  the  moneyers  are  not  charged.  Those 
of  York,  Lincoln,  Nottingham,  Oxford,  Stafford  are  not 
charged. 

Thus  it  is  evident  that  the  aid  for  the  marriage  of  the  king's 
daughter  was  made  up  in  several  ways,  and  that  of  the  different 
forms  the  scutage  was  not  the  most  important  financially.  It 
has  been  said  that  this  aid  "was  a  strictly  feudal  impost."'  Miss 
Norgate  thought  of  the  scutage  as  being  the  whole  of  this 
impost,  but  in  this  connection  it  may  be  asked  to  what  extent 
the  tallage  of  towns  and  other  such  dona  were  feudal.  A 
tallage  was  an  arbitrary  due  payable  from  demesnes,  escheats, 
and  warships  to  the  King  or  other  lord.^  It  was  technically  of  a 
feudal  character,  the  principle  being  that  a  lord  could  use  as  he 
pleased  the  uninfeudated  portion  of  his  estate.  So  the  King 
could  administer  as  he  saw  fit  the  uninfeudated  portions  of  the 
kingdom.  The  strictly  feudal  parts  or  knights'  fees  were  pro- 
tected by  the  crude  code  of  feudal  law.  A  certain  amount  of 
service  could  be  exacted  from  them  for  a  limited  time  ;  money 
payments  could  be  demanded  from  them  only  at  certain  junctures, 
as  defined  by  the  three  regular  aids,  relief,  etc.  Knights'  fees 
could  not  be  tallaged.3  The  portions  that  were  not  given  out  in 
knights'  fees  were  not  defended  by  the  feudal  code.  The  towns 
were  not  limited  in  their  obligations  to  the  king  except  so  far  as 
he  chose  to  give  the  charters.  Ferms  (or  socage)  and  other 
forms  of  tenure  besides  knights'  fees  could  likewise  be  tallaged.* 

'Norgate,  Anj.  Kings,  II.  125.  ^  Ifit'd.,  745. 

'Madox,  Hist.  Exch.,  I,  694. 

*  Tallage  was  not  chargeable  on  ]^land  held  by  knight  service,  f.  g^..-  "  Villata  de 


LEVIES  OF  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  II  41 

In  a  larger  sense  the  uninfeudated  parts  of  the  kingdom  were 
the  non-feudal  parts  ;  the  king's  domain  was  the  strictly  national 
portion.  The  clergy  always  bore  a  relation  to  the  state  that  did 
not  admit  of  their  being  considered  merely  as  feudal  landhold- 
ers. Henry  II  made  the  coinage  of  the  country  truly  national, 
and  the  moneyers  were  held  closely  accountable  to  him.  W'hen 
the  hidage  or  carucage  first  appeared  under  Richard,  1 194,  it  was 
called  a  tallage.'  The  various  imposts,  therefore,  which  were 
levied  upon  towns,  clergy,  moneyers,  Jews,  may  be  regarded  as 
non-feudal  in  character,  and  if  they  do  not  rise  to  the  dignity  of 
national  taxes,  they  may  be  considered  in  the  light  of  a  crude 
form  of  class  taxation  under  the  complete  control  of  the  King's 
Exchequer. 

Relating  to  the  aid  of  1168  Stubbs  says  that  "the  collection 
of  the  money  occupied  the  barons  two  years,  and,  as  appears 
from  the  action  of  the  next  year,  did  not  satisfy  the  King,  while 
it  called  forth  great  complaints  on  the  part  of  the  people."* 
This  summary  statement  of  the  case  is  worth  a  little  explana- 
tion. As  has  been  said  before,  the  assessment  on  the  towns  for 
the  aid  was  made  by  judges  who  were  going  about  on  a  judicial 
circuit.  As  they  held  pleas  in  each  of  the  counties,  it  was 
impossible  for  the  work  to  be  finished  in  one  year,  and  the  aid 
from  a  number  of  the  counties  as  well  as  returns  from  the  court 
proceedings  were  recorded  for  the  first  time  in  the  Roll  for  1 161. 
The  scutage  of  i  ;«.  per  knight's  fee,  however,  was  all  accounted 
for  in  the  Roll  for  1168,  but  there  were  many  arrears  left  to  be 
paid  in  the  next  year  or  even  after.  Yet  it  will  be  noticed  that 
the  portion  of  the  aid  that  was  unpaid  in  the  year  of  its  assess- 
ment was  the  new  increment  which  they  had  not  been  accus- 
tomed to  pay ;  in  the  case  of  the  churchmen  for  the  knights 
"  quos  fion  recognoscit,"   in  other   instances    for    new   enfcofments. 

Wicumbe  debet  30 1.  8  d.  de  Taillagio.  Sed  consideratum  est  per  justiciarium  et 
Barones,  quod  Manerium  illud  non  debet  tailliari,  quia  inde  facit  Alanus  de  Basset 
servicium  militare,  sicut  continentur  in  Carta   ipsius."     (Rob.,  i,  Jn.     Madox,  I,  745-) 

'Rot.  Curiae  Regis  (Ed.  Maitland),  108,  1220  :  "Taillagium  per  Angliam  de 
Singulis  carucis  2  sol."     (Ann.  Wav.,  293.) 

»Stubbs,  C.  H.,  I,  509. 


42  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

For  example,  the  Bishop  of  Norwich  paid  for  the  4CJ  knights 
^^ quos  recogjwscit,''  and  was  acquitted  in  the  14th  year,  but  he  still 
owed  for  the  8^  knights  '' quos  non  recognoscW  in  the  19th 
year.'  Of  course,  the  barons  did  not  relish  being  called  to 
account  for  more  knights  than  they  had  been  before,  but  the  rate 
of  I  mark  per  fee  could  not  be  considered  oppressive,  and  it  was 
paid  generally  with  fair  promptness.  The  new  method  of 
assessing  the  barons  for  the  fees  they  had  created  could  not  have 
been  the  cause  of  popular  complaint,  for  the  new  arrangement 
affected  only  the  magnates,  while  the  lesser  tenants-in-chief  paid 
just  as  before.  With  subtenants  it  could  make  no  difference 
whether  the  emoluments  from  the  extra  fees  created  went  to  the 
advantage  of  the  lord  or  of  the  king.  Yet  there  was  complaint 
of  the  manner  in  which  the  sheriffs  conducted  the  business  in 
connection  with  the  aid,  and  in  1 170,  when  the  sheriffs  were 
turned  out  of  office  and  an  investigation  of  their  conduct  was 
made,  the  subject  of  the  aid  was  one  of  the  articles  in  the 
Inquest. ="  We  know  that  a  number  of  persons  holding  knights' 
fees  did  not  make  any  response  to  the  demand  for  the  cartae,  and 
so  escaped  the  payment  of  the  aid.  As  the  barons  received 
their  instructions  in  this  matter  from  the  sheriffs,  and  likewise 
sent  in  their  returns  through  those  officers, 3  the  blame  for  per- 
mitting any  parties  to  escape  the  payment  might  reasonably  fall 
upon  the  sheriffs.  In  taking  the  aid  of  the  towns,  also,  and 
individuals  of  the  towns,  there  was  plenty  of  opportunity  for 
favoritism  and  venality  on  their  part. 

The  king  was  not  wrong  in  trying  to  bring  about  a  more 
rational  method  in  the  assessment  of  scutage.  The  old  scrvi- 
tiiim  debitum,  as  has  been  said,  was  based  upon  allotments  made 
in  a  former  generation.     The  amount  of  service  due  had  been 

' "  Epc  Norwic'  redd'  Comp  de  40  m.  p  40  mil'  quos  recognoscit  se  debere  Regi. 
In  thro  liberavit.  Et  Quietus  est."  "  lb  debet  1 16  s.  8  d.  p.  viii  Mil.  et  dim  et  quarta 
parte  Mil.  quos  non  recognoscit  se  debere  Regi."     (R.  14,  p.  21.) 

'"VI.  Et  inquiratur  de  auxiliis  ad  maritandam  filiam  regis,  quid  inde  exierit  de 
singulis  hundredis  et  singulis  villatis,  sive  in  redditis  sive  in  perdonis,  et  cui  illud 
traditum  fuerit  et  liberatum."     (Sel.  Char.,  149.) 

3  Round,  Feud.  Eng.,  240. 


LEVIES  OF  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  II  43 

determined  apparently  haphazard  rather  than  upon  any  settled 
principle.  How  many  knights  a  baron  owed  was  a  matter  of 
tradition  and  common  understanding.  There  was  room  here  for 
disagreement,  and  there  was  a  perpetual  squabble  between  the 
constable  and  some  of  the  barons  as  to  how  many  knights  ought 
to  be  furnished.  The  assessments  of  the  different  scutages  were 
not  in  every  case  uniform.  The  Abbey  of  Glastonbury  in  the 
first  two  scutages  paid  for  60  knights,  but  after  that  for  40 ; 
Shaftesbury  at  first  paid  for  10,  but  afterwards  for  7;  the  Bish- 
oprick  of  Exeter  sometimes  paid  for  15^  knights,  and  at  other 
times  for  17}4  ',  the  Abbey  of  Pershore  paid  for  3  knights  in  the 
first  scutage,  protesting  that  it  only  owed  2,  and  after  1168  it 
was  charged  for  2  ;  the  Earl  of  Ferrers  paid  for  80  knights 
in  1 1  59,  but  in  his  car/a  speaks  of  60  knights;  Daniel  de  Creve- 
coeur  paid  for  20  fees  in  1 161,  but  in  the  eighth  year  paid  for  12,  in 
the  fourteenth  year  for  14  ;  William  de  Helion  paid  for  i  5  knights 
at  first,  and  later  for  10.'  In  many  instances  it  is  impossible  to 
tell  what  their  servitiiim  debitum  was.  Great  inequalities  had 
grown  up.  The  Bishop  of  Durham,  whose  servitiiim  debitum 
was  10  knights,  had  enfeoffed  70;^  the  Abbot  of  Cerne,  whose 
se}"vitiu7n  debitum  was  2  knights  for  the  army,  had  enfeoffed  10. 
Some  had  made  cnfeofments  far  beyond  what  they  owed  the 
king,  but  most  had  made  cnfeofments  to  correspond  more  nearly 
to  what  they  had  to  render.  It  was,  therefore,  a  measure  not  only 
greatly  to  the  advantage  of  the  crown,  but  of  ordinary  fair  policy, 
to  have  the  burdens  of  army  service  borne  more  nearly  according 
to  the  means  of  the  barons.  If  some  estates  had  proved  to  be 
more  valuable  than  others,  it  was  not  unjust  that  their  burdens 
should  be  heavier.  The  efforts  of  the  king  in  carrying  out  this 
policy  were  not  wholly  successful,  for  the  accounts  for  knights 
"■  quos  recognoscit"  and  new  enfeofment  fell  universally  in  arrears, 
and  Madox  states  that  he  never  knew  of  such  arrears  being  paid. 
Yet  a  new  era  was  inaugurated  when  the  crown  could  keep 
accurate  statements  of  the  available  resources  of  each  of  its 
tenants. 

'  For  instances  see  Round,  Feud.  Eng.,  249  et  seq.  'K.  14,  p.  89. 


44  THE  SCUTAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

SCUTAGE    OF    IRELAND. 

The  scutage  of  the  eighteenth  year  differed  from  any  of  the 
others  thus  far  considered,  in  that  it  was  not  attended  by  any 
other  kind  of  donum.  It  was  customary  to  take  in  connection 
with  the  scutage  a  donum  from  the  towns,  and  perhaps  from  the 
moneyers,  Jews,  or  clergy  some  impost,  both  with  a  view  to  rais- 
ing the  necessary  amount  of  money  and  to  bring  other  classes  of 
the  population  as  well  as  the  knight  tenants  under  some  form  of 
taxation.  The  two  years  following  the  death  of  Becket,  1 1 70,  and 
preceding  the  rebellion  of  11 73,  were  troubled  ones,  and  the 
stern  king  had  to  compromise  himself  even  so  far  as  to  renounce 
the  Constitutions  of  Clarendon.'  The  accounts  for  the  marriage 
of  the  daughter  were  still  running  and  seem  to  have  been  paid 
with  some  difficulty.  In  this  condition  of  affairs  it  would  not 
have  been  wise  to  lay  any  additional  burdens  on  the  people.  The 
accounts  are  given  under  the  title,  "Scutage  of  barons  who  did 
not  go  with  the  king  to  Ireland,  nor  send  knights  or  money  for 
themselves  thither."^  The  expedition  in  question  took  place  in 
1 171,  and,  considering  all  the  facts  in  the  case,  the  army  could 
not  have  been  a  very  large  one.  The  number  of  knights  is  given 
as  400  or  500,  while  the  whole  force  was  about  4000  men,  car- 
ried by  400  ships. 3  We  are  not  told  of  the  employment  of  any 
mercenaries,  and  the  Roll  of  the  eighteenth  year  shows  that 
most  of  the  tenants  in  chivalry  did  not  follow  in  the  campaign. 
It  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  barons  were  considered 
under  obligations  to  go  or  contribute  towards  this  expedition 
that  the  summons  in  1171  was  a  general  one.  Legally  the 
barons  who  did  respond  to  the  summons  were  liable  to  forfeiture 
or  fine  at  the  king's  mercy,  but  inasmuch  as  six-sc\'cnths  of  the 
barons  were  remiss,  stringent  measures  against  them  would  be 
out  of  the  question,  if  at  all  contemplated.     The  scutage  was  a 

'Slubbs,  C.  II.,  I,  513. 

'"De  Scutagio  Baronum  qui  nee  abierunt  cum  Regi  in  Ibemia  nee  milites  nee 
denarios  illuc  pro  se  miserunt."     (R.  187.) 

3GiraIdus  gives  500  knights,  V,  p.  27$;  Anglo-Norm.  Poem,  400,  p.  123.  Bene- 
dict says,  "  Magnum  congregavit  exercitum,"  Ben.  Pet.,  I,  25.     (See  Norgate,  II,  112.) 


V 

LEVIES  OF  SCUT  AGE  UNDERTTEHSTRTJi  45 

convenient  and  equitable  means  for  the  king  to  get  even  with 
the  barons,  and  thus  it  may  be  regarded,  as  Stubbs  says,  in  the 
light  of  a  fine.'  This  is  the  form  that  the  scutage  generally 
assumed  in  succeeding  years,  though  it  may  not  always  be  con- 
fused with  the  fines.  It  will  be  seen  from  the  amount  of  the  scu- 
tage in  the  appended  table  that  in  a  few  counties  the  sums  were 
larger  than  in  Ii58.^  This  is  due  partly  to  the  larger  rate  of 
the  levy,  this  being  20  s.  per  fee,  and  partly  to  the  fact  of  certain 
persons  being  made  to  contribute  who  did  not  when  the  aid  was 
taken.  In  Oxfordshire,  among  those  "who  did  not  send  cartae" 
Hugh  de  St.  German  rendered  account  for  50  /.  for  the  fief  of 
Bernard  of  St.  Waleric  ;  Walkelin  of  Hareng  rendered  20  s.;^  in 
Buckinghamshire  and  Bedfordshire  the  land  which  was  Osbert 
Martell,  Humphrey  Vis  de  Lu,  Agnes  Bereville,  Robert  Survia, 
etc.,  rendered  accounts  which  are  noticed  in  the  fourteenth  year 

'Stubbs,  Pref.  Ben.  Pet.,  8, etc. 

»        Hertford   in   Wales,  -         -         -  185/.  12s.     id. 

Nottingham  and  Derby,  -         -  124/.  lOj, 

York,         - 404/.  14J.    td. 

Worcester, 64/.  lOj. 

Oxford, 75/.    5J. 

Norfolk  and  Suffolk,       -         -         -  197/;    7^. 

Northampton, I95/.    8^.    ^d. 

Essex  and  Hertford,        -         -         -  66/.  i8j.    Td. 

Buckingham  and  Bedford,  -         -  269/.  15^.'    8^'. 

Dorset  and  Somerset,     -         -         -  134/.    Ts.    8d. 

Hampshire,        ...         -         -  57/.  20s. 

Lincoln,  .....  92/.  16s. 

Devon, 299/.  14s. 

Stafford, 16/.  (Bp.  Chester) 

Warwick  and  Leicester,     -         -         -  188/.    7^.  lod, 

Shrop,  .....  

Cambridge  and  Huntington,       -  -  136/.  lOs. 

Gloucester, 55/.  1 55. 

Wilts, 146/.  13J. 

Sussex, 156/. 

Kent, 210/.  14J. 

Surrey,  4/.  (Abbot) 

Middlesex,         .....  37/.  its.    8d.  (Bp.) 

Total, 3298/.    3J.    4d. 

JR.  18,  p.  20. 


46  ANGL  0-SCO  TCH  FE  UDAL  RELA  TIONS 

claim  to  the  district  north  of  this  line  as  theirs  by  right  of 
inheritance.  Northumbria  had  a  varying  boundary,  and  the 
region  from  Tyne  to  Forth  seems  to  have  been  included,  now 
under  the  name  Bernicia,  again  under  Saxonia,  and  sometimes 
under  the  varying  names  of  Lothian.  "The  Border"  was  an 
exceedingly  unstable  quantity.  But  in  the  feudal  period  Lothian 
seems  to  have  been  always  shut  off  from  the  Tweed  by  the  Scot- 
ish  March.  The  similarity,  in  the  Latin,  of  Lothian  and  Leeds 
has  increased  the  confusion.  Beda  twice  refers  to  Loidis,  and  it 
seems  pretty  clear  that  to  his  mind  "  regio  Loidis"  meant  the 
district  of  Leeds.' 

The  A.-S.  Chronicle  reads,  "when  King  Malcolm  heard  that 
they  [William  and  Robert]  would  seek  him  with  a  force,  he  went 
with  his  force  ut  of  Scotia  nde  i?ito  Lothe?ie  o?i  Etiglaland  and  there 
awaited"  ( 1091).  This  Mr.  Thorpe  translates  "the  district  of 
Leeds,"  in  accordance  with  Florence  of  Worcester,  who  wrote 
"provincia  Loidis."  It  should  be  remembered  that  Florence 
followed  a  copy  of  the  Chronicle  which  has  not  been  preserved. 
Simeon  of  Durham  and  later  writers  agree  with  Florence  in  using 
"provincia  Loidis,"  though  in  1018  Simeon  designates  Z^//^'^?;? 
as  "  Lodoneium."  Walter  of  Hemingburgh  writes  "  provincia 
Lowdicensis  juxta  confinia  ad  resistendum  praeparatus." 

Was  the  meeting  of  Malcolm  and  William,  then,  in  the 
district  of  Leeds,  or  north  of  the  Tweed  in  what  was  definitely 
known  as  Lothian,  or  at  some  place  between  the  Tyne  and  Tweed, 
in  the  region  anciently  claimed  by  the  Picts  and  Scots?  Mr.  Bur- 
ton maintains  the  first  view,  and  is  supported  by  Mr.  Thorpe's 
translation  of  the  Chronicle.^  Mr.  Skene  and  English  writers 
oppose  this  view  in  favor  of  the  second.*  Pinkerton  is  a  strong 
advocate  of  the  third  view,  making  the  place  of  meeting  in  the 
modern  county  of  Northumberland. 5 

There  is  at  least  one  objection  to  a  meeting  in  the  district  of 

'  Beda,  Bk.  II,  Cap.  14 ;   Bk.  Ill,  Cap.  24  ;  Celtic  Scot.,  I,  p.  254. 
'Chronicon,  I,  p.  23.  ■«  Celtic  Scot.,  I,  p.  429,  note. 

3  Hist.  Scot.,  I.  pp.  378,  444,  notes. 
s  An  Enquiry,  etc.,  II,  p.  209.     Cf.  Ilailes'  Annals,  I,  p.  24. 


LEVIES  OF  SCUTAGE  UNDER  HENRY  IT  47 

who  are  reported  in  the  Roll  of  the  eighteenth  year  as  not  hav- 
ing sent  cartae,  the  three  mentioned  are  about  the  only  ones 
who  are  recorded  at  all  in  the  fourteenth  year,  e.g.,  compare  the 
lists  of  Oxford  for  the  eighteenth  year  and  the  fourteenth 
year;'  Walkelin  Harcnc  is  one  of  the  list  in  the  eighteenth  year 
who  did  not  send  cartae,  and  in  the  fourteenth  year  the  sheriff 
renders  his  account  as  he  did  not  send  a  charta,^  the  other 
names  do  not  appear  in  the  fourteenth  year;  in  Northampton, 
for  the  eighteenth  year,  the  sheriff  renders  account  for  the 
knights'  fees  of  Hecham  and  Olney.3  In  the  fourteenth  year 
these  fees  are  recorded  as  escheats,"*  and  so  there  would  be  no 
one  in  possession  of  them  to  return  cartels ;  the  name  Lachuche 
is  not  recorded  in  the  fourteenth  year;  in  Buckingham  and 
Bedford  some  of  the  names  in  the  eighteenth  year  occur  in  the 
fourteenth  year,  but  most  do  not ;  ^  in  York,  for  the  fourteenth 
year,  is  the  following  entry  : 

"  Id  vie'  redd'  Comp'  de  feodis  Baron'  et  milit'  qui  de  Rege  tenent  in 
capita  in  Baillia  sua  qui  cartas  de  tenemento  suo  Regi  non  miserunt.  Scili- 
cet de  20  m.  de  feodo  Com'  Albemarl'.  Et  de  50  m.  de  feodo  Com'  Conani.  Et 
de  2  m.  de  feodo  Ade  de  Brus  quod  tenet  de  Com'  Cestr.  Et  de  16  m.  de  feodo 
quod  idem  Adam  tenet  de  Rege.  Et  de  10  m.  de  feod'  Willi  Tussebut.  Et 
de  5  m.  de  feod'  Rob  de  Bruis.  Et  de  5  m.et  dim  de  feodo  Jocelini  de  Luvain. 
Et  de  I  m.  de  feodo  Willi  de  Filger."* 

All  of  these  names  except  Earl  Conan  appear  in  the  eigh- 
teenth year  among  those  who  did  not  send  cartae ;  while  in  the 
eighteenth  year  other  names  are  added. ^  In  Dorset  and  Som- 
erset none  of  those  who  did  not  send  cartae  are  recorded  in  the 
fourteenth  year.^  It  seems  altogether  likely  that  in  the  four- 
teenth year  the  sheriffs  made  some  efforts  to  get  returns   from 

'  R.  iS,  p.  20  ;  R.  14,  p.  207. 

*"Id  vie'  redd'  Comp'  de  i  m.  p.  feodo  Walchelini  Harenc  qui  de  tenemento  suo 
Chartam  non  misit."   (R.  14,  207.) 

3R.  18,  p.  37;  R.  M.p.53- 

*  "Id  vie' redd' Comp' de  23  s.  4  d.  de  feodo  mil'  escaett'  de  Oinea  de  eodem 
auxiiio."     (R.  14,  p.  53.) 

5  R.  18,  p.  52  ;  R.  14,  p.  10.  1  R.  18,  p.  62. 

« R.  14,  p.  90.  •  R.  18,  p.  77  ;  R- 14.  p-  141- 


48  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

those  who  had  not  sent  cartae.^  Their  efforts  in  this  direction, 
whether  from  remissness  or  inability,  were  not  wholly  successful 
or  satisfactory.  The  work  was  further  carried  out  and  the  lists 
made  complete  by  the  new  sheriffs  in  1172.  In  some  cases  the 
number  of  fiefs  for  which  the  party  paid  was  amended.  Thus, 
in  Yorkshire,  Jocelin  de  Luvain  in  the  fourteenth  year  paid  for 
55^  fiefs,  but  in  the  eighteenth  year  paid  for  6;^  certain  fees  in 
Hecham  in  the  fourteenth  year  paid  for  2^^  knights,  but  in  the 
eighteenth  year  paid  for  2^.3  Madox  failed  to  understand  the 
real  purport  of  the  cartae  of  1166;  he  ignored  the  sweeping 
nature  of  the  revolution  that  was  thereby  affected  in  the  assess- 
ments of  knights'  fees.  Believing  that  the  cartae  of  1 166  were  for 
the  specific  levy  of  the  aid  to  marry  the  daughter,"*  he  under- 
stood that  the  cartae  referred  to  in  the  eighteenth  year  were  for 
the  particular  scutage  of  Ireland. ^  The  Red  Book,  however, 
whose  authority  on  this  point  Madox  questions,  is  in  the  right 
about  the  matter.^  In  some  respects  a  better  organization  of 
the  great  honors  or  baronies  was  affected  under  the  new  sheriffs. 
In  1 166  there  was  no  cartel  made  out  for  the  knights  of  Earl 
Conan.  As  his  estates  were  in  several  parts  of  the  kingdom, 
the  accounts  for  his  aid  in  1168  are  given  under  three  separate 
counties  by  the  respective  sheriffs  each  for  the  knights  qtii  sunt 
in  Ballia  suaJ  In  this  way  about  76  knights  were  accounted 
for.  In  1 1 72  the  honor  in  question  was  accounted  for  as  a 
ferm  of  Ranulf  Glanvil,  and  money  for  176  knights  was  paid, 
but  no  account  was  rendered,  because  Glanvil  was  not  as  yet 
able  to  tell  the  number  of  knights  of  the   honor. ^ 

' "  Id  vie'  redd'  Comp'  de  feodo  milit'  qui  de  Rege  tenent  in  Capite  in  Baillia  sua 
qui  non  miserunt  Regi  Cartas  de  tenemento  suo.  Scl  de  20  s.  de  proprio  feodo.  Et  de 
Hacunebi  terra  escaeta  in  manum  Regie  de  20  s."  (R.  14,  p.  65.) 

■  R.  14,  p.  90 ;  R.  18,  p.  62.  3  R.  14,  p.  53  ;  R.  18,  p.  37. 

*"  In  order  to  the  due  levying  of  this  aid  out  of  the  several  fees  within  the 
realm,  the  barons  and  tenants  in  capite  were  commanded  to  certify  to  the  king  what 
fees  they  had,"  etc.     (Madox,  His.  Exch.,  I,  575.) 

<  Ibid.,  I,  580.  6  Red  Book,  8.  ^  R.  14,  pp.  23,  90,  103. 

*"Id' de  Scutagio  ejusdem  Honoris  de  Exercitu  Hyberniae.  In  thesauro  176  1. 
12  s.  I  d.  Sed  non  redd'  Comp'  quia  nondum  potuit  scire  numerum  militum  ejusdem 
Honoris."     (R.  18,  p.  5.) 


LEVIES  OF  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  II  49 

Another  remarkable  feature  of  the  scutage  of  11 72  is  the 
number  of  greater  barons  who  paid  the  money  instead  of  going 
to  the  war.  At  the  time  of  the  campaign  of  Toulouse  the  Earls 
and  most  of  the  greater  barons  attended  the  army,  while  the 
scutage  was  paid  almost  altogether  by  the  Churchmen  and  tenants 
holding  less  than  10  knights.  The  lands  of  Simon  de  Bellocamp 
and  the  Earl  of  Warwick  were  at  that  time  in  ferm  and  made 
returns  for  88  and  73  knights  respectively,"  and  the  custos  of  the 
fiefs  of  the  Earl  of  Ferrers  paid  for  80  knights.^  There  were 
several  instances  of  paying  for  knights  from  10  to  20  in  this 
year  ;  e.  g.,  of  William  de  Romara  (20),  Nigel  de  Lovetot  (10, 
Robert  of  Heliun  (is).^ 

In  the  scutage  of  1161,  the  custos  of  the  Earl  of  Ferrers 
again  paid  for  80  knights,  the  land  being  in  the  king's  hand.*  A 
number  of  barons  paid  for  knights  for  10  to  20  ;  e.  g.,  Osbert  son 
of  Hugh  for  15,  Hamo  fitz  Meinfelin  for  15,  Nigel  de  Lovetot 
for  10.5  Next  to  the  great  churchmen  the  highest  numbers 
accounted  for  were  by  Reginald  de  St.  Valory  and  Roger  de 
Arundel,  who  paid  for  50  and  30  knights  respectively.* 

In  the  year  1 162  the  custos  of  the  honor  of  Tickhill  paid  for 
60  knights. 7  The  scutage  of  Simon  de  Bellocamp  was  for 
about  46  knights;^  that  of  Walter  de  Aincourt  was  for  40 
knights  ;9  that  of  Ralf  Hanselin  was  for  25  ; '°  of  Bernard  Balliol, 
30  knights  ;"  of  Hubert  de  Rye,  30  knights  ;  of  Earl  Geoffrey,  34 
knights."  The  name  of  the  Earl  of  Chester  appears,  but  the 
amount  that  was  accounted  for  him  is  effaced  from  the  mem- 
brane. Some  of  these  payments  were  probably  for  estates  which 
were  in  the  king's  hand  for  the  time,  but  the  Roll  is  the  most 
unsatisfactory  of  any  in  the  method  of  its  accounts,  and  it  can 
not  be  determined  from  this  record  what  estates  were  in  custody. 

In  1 165  a  larger  number  of  the  earls  and  greater  barons  paid 
scutage  instead  of  attending  the  army  of  Wales.   Earl  Hugh  and 

■  R.  5,  pp.  22  and  26.  5  R.  7,  pp.  12,  20,  45.  '  R.  8,  p.  20. 

»R.  5,  p.  57.  «R.  7,  pp.  26  and  47.  '°  R.  8,  p.  33. 

3R.  5,  pp.  4,  47,  55.  rR.  8,  p.  34.  "R.  8,  p.  52. 

<R.  7,  p.  29.  «R.  8,  p.  42.  "R.  8,  p.  71. 


50  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

Earl  Conan  each  paid  the  large  sum  of  227/.  \os.  for  knights 
and  Serjeants  for  y^  year.'  Simon  de  Bellocamp  rendered 
account  for  54  knights;^  Earl  Simon  rendered  account  for  61/.  ;3 
the  Earl  of  Clare  rendered  i6ow.  2Qd.''\\x\  the  14th  year  he  paid  for 
131  knights).  Walter  de  Aincourt  paid  for  40  knights  ;5  Henry 
de  Rye  for  35;^  Bernard  Balliol  for  30  j^  Richard  de  Hay  for 
20;^  Robert  the  king's  son  accounted  for  100  knights;  Tayn  de 
Montdoubleau  for  40  knights  ;  and  a  large  number  paid  for  20 
knights  and  less. 

In  1 168,  of  course,  barons  great  and  small  paid  the  aid  irre- 
spective of  whether  they  went  to  war  or  not. 

In  1 1 72  the  following  barons  are  conspicuous  in  paying  the 
scutage.  The  rate  being  20  .y.,  the  number  of  pounds  paid  will  be 
the  same  as  the  number  of  knights  which  they  represent : 

Earl  Hugh,  88/.  i6.y.  4^.9 

Simon  de  Bellocamp,  53/.  155.  8^.'° 

Henry  de  Lacy,  75/.  II5." 

Adam  de  Port,  55/.  40.?." 

Earl  Reginald  (deb.),  215/.   ^s.  8 ^.'3 

William,  son  of  Earl  Patrick,  56/.  i6.f.'* 

Earl  of  Warenne,  6o/.'5 

Walter  de  Marne,  29/.  305.'^ 

William  Fossard,  31/.  lO^.'^ 

A  number  of  honors  and  baronies  which  were  in  charge  of 
custodians  rendered  scutage,  c.  g.: 

Honor  of  Earl  Conan,  176/.  125.  \d}^ 

Honor  of  Henry  de  Rye,  35/.'' 

Honor  of  Eye,  90/.  io.y.^° 

Honor  of  William  de  Curci,  45/.  9.?,''' 


'R.  II,  pF 

'•  7. 

49. 

'P.37. 

•5R. 

18,  p.  132. 

»R.  1 1,  p. 

24- 

9R.  18,  p.  27. 

"R. 

18,  p.  138. 

3R.  II,  p. 

49. 

■°R.  18,  p.  52. 

"R. 

18,  p.  60. 

MM  05. 

"  R.  18,  p.  61. 

'8R. 

18,  p.  6. 

5  P.  37. 

"R.  18,  p.  83. 

•9R. 

18,  p.  30. 

«P.  8. 

»3R.  18,  p.  132. 

»°R. 

18.  p.  38. 

7  p.  28. 

'M<.  18,  p.  127. 

"R. 

18.  p.  33. 

LEVIES  OF  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  II  51 

Honor  of  Warrengef,  100/.  55.' 

Honor  of  Earl  Giffard,  66/.  30^.^ 

A  little  observation  of  these  facts  will  give  one  some  insight 
into  the  way  in  which  the  scutage  was  applied  in  actual  practice. 
The  churchmen,  owing  to  their  peculiar  position  and  principles, 
were  always  less  inclined  to  military  pursuits  than  other  classes 
of  people.  The  Scutage  first  appears  applied  to  them  only,  and 
in  each  of  the  levies  the  churchmen  pretty  generally  fulfilled 
their  obligations  in  this  way.  The  minor  barons  were,  many  of 
them,  becoming  more  and  more  disinclined  to  leave  their  estates 
and  follow  the  pursuits  of  chivalry,  and  the  early  scutages  were 
almost  altogether  made  up  from  the  contributions  of  churchmen 
and  minor  tenants  in  capite.  The  honors  and  baronies  which 
were  for  the  time  being  "in  the  king's  hand,"  and  placed  in  the 
custody  of  some  sheriff  or  bailiff,  owing  to  the  death  or  displace- 
ment of  its  lord,  when  there  was  no  successor  of  suitable  age  to 
take  immediate  possession,  were  thus  temporarily  deprived  of 
their  natural  military  leaders.  Without  the  earl  or  baron  it 
would  be  difficult  to  get  the  quotas  of  service  from  a  swarm  of 
subtenants  who  held  small  fiefs  and  fractions  of  fiefs.  Ranulf 
Glanvil  confessed  that  for  the  honor  of  which  he  had  the  custody 
he  had  not  been  able  to  find  out  the  number  of  knights. 3  The 
estates  which  were  accounted  for  by  custodians  formed  a 
considerable  part  of  the  scutage  of  Ireland.  It  is  evident  that  at 
first  the  great  lav  barons  had  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  paying 
scutage.  In  11  59,  so  far  as  they  were  summoned,  they  seem  to 
have  gone  with  the  king  on  the  expedition  of  Toulouse.  In  the 
I  ith  year,  and  much  more  in  the  i8th  year,  the  great  barons  to 
some  extent  are  found  paying  the  scutage.  The  reasons  why 
the  greater  tenants-in-chief  became  inclined  to  pay  scutage  may 
be  considered  in  another  connection. 

SCUTAGE    OF    GALWAY. 

The  only  other  levy  of  scutage  under  Henry  II  was  that  for   ' 
the  army  of  Galway,  taken  in  1187.     The  expedition  took  place 
'R.  18,  p.  53.  'R.  18,  p.  54.  3R.  18,  p.  6. 


52  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

in  1 1 86,  and  the  "scutage  of  Galwey"  is  referred  to  in  the  Pipe 
Rolls  for  that  year.'  The  levy,  which  was  put  in  charge  in  the 
summer  of  1186,  is  accounted  in  the  Roll  for  1187,  like  the  scu- 
tage of  Ireland,  for  the  barons  or  knights  "who  did  not  go  with 
the  king  in  the  army  of  Galway."  The  rate  was  20s.,  the  same 
as  in  the  i8th  year.  The  Pipe  Roll  for  this  year  is  not  printed, 
but  for  some  of  the  counties  Madox  gives  the  most  of  the 
items.^ 

Scutage,  33  year      Tallage,  33  year 

Yorkshire, 6q/.     is.         364/.    \%s. 

Wiltshire, 99/.     5^.  140/.      \s.   Zd. 

Dorset  and  Somerset,       -         -         -        119/.    loj. 

The  method  of  assessment  upon  both  old  and  new  enfeof- 
ments  seems  not  to  have  been  strictly  carried  out  as  in  the  14th 
and  1 8th  years.  A  great  number  of  bishopricks  and  honors, 
however,  were  in  the  king's  hand  at  the  time,  and  under  these 
circumstances  he  received  the  income  from  all  the  fees  which 
were  upon  the  several  estates.  The  following  quotations  will 
indicate : 

"Custodes  Episcopatus  Saresberiae  debent  32I.  de  Scutagio  Militum  quos 
episcopus  recognoscit  se  debere  Regi. 

"  Idem  debent  81.  los.  pro  militibus  quos  non  recognoscit  se  debere  regi ; 
qui  ideo  reddendi  sunt  quia  Honor  est  in  manu  Regis."  ^ 

"  Margareta  de  Bohun  redd' Comp' de  30I.  los.  de  Scutagio  Militum 
Honoris  Hunfridi  de  Bohun,  quem  habet  in  custodia  per  Regem  de  veteri  fef- 
famento. 

"  Eadem  Margareta  debet  gl.  ids.  de  novo  feffamento."-' 

"Laurentius  —  et  Magister  Rogerus  Arundelredd'  Comp'  de  20I.  de  Scu- 
tagio Militum  Archiepiscopatus  de  Everwic  quos  Archiepiscopus  recognoscit 
se  debere  Regi. 

"  Idem  r.  c.  de  27I.  9s.  8d.  de  Militibus  quos  Archiepiscopus  non  recog- 
noscit se  debere  Regi  ;  qui  idcirco  redduntur  (juia  Archiepiscopatus  est  in 
manu  Regis."  s 

"  Id  vie' deb  81.  los.  de  Scut  ....  Honoris  Peverelli  de  London  de  veteri 
feff'  et  novo,  quia  honor  est  in  manu  Regis."** 

>  Eyton,  Itin.,  269.  *■  Ibid. 

=*  Madox,  Hist.  Exch.,  I,  634.  s  R.  33,  York. 

3  R.  33,  Wiltshire.  «  R.  i,  Ric,  p.  24. 


LEVIES  OF  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  11  53 

Of  those  who  were  in  possession  of  their  fiefs,  some  who 
paid  for  old  and  new  enfeofments  before,  are  found  accounting 
only  for  old  enfeofments,  or  in  the  case  of  clergy  for  '' quos 
recognoscit,''  e.  g: 

"  Id  Vic  deb  70s.  de  Scut  Roberti  de  Helion  de  veteri  ff."' 
"Episcopus  Norwic  de  40s.  de  Scut  militum  suorum  quos  recognoscit  se 
debere  Regi."^ 

Like  most  of  the  other  scutages  that  have  been  considered, 
this  of  the  thirty-third  year  was  accompanied  by  a  general  tallage 
of  towns  of  the  king's  demesne  and  manors  which  were  in  rna?m. 

OTHER    FORMS    OF    SCUTAGE. 

The  levies  of  scutage,  which  have  been  thus  far  considered, 
were  of  general  application  throughout  the  kingdom,  and  were 
taken  with  special  reference  to  some  great  military  expedition, 
for  which  a  general  summons  was  issued  which  placed  all  military 
tenants  under  obligations  for  service.  The  expeditions  of  Tou- 
louse 1 1  59,  of  Wales  1 165,  of  Ireland  1 171,  of  Galway  11 86,  are 
each  reported  as  being  large  and  of  general  concern.  Besides 
these  military  operations  for  which  the  whole  or  a  large  part  of 
the  feudal  host  was  called  upon,  there  were  a  number  of  minor 
campaigns  which  were  supported  by  only  partial  levies  or  even 
the  king's  household  troops.  For  example,  in  1157,  there 
was  an  invasion  of  Wales,  which  is  attested  by  a  number  of  items 
in  the  Pipe  Roll  for  the  third  year. 3  It  is  said  that  this  force  was 
raised  bv  every  two  knights  joining  to  support  a  third,  so  that 
a  third  of  the  whole  body  took  part  in  the  expedition.*  A  cam- 
paign is  reported  in  1 163,  when  the  English  army  wasted  Carmar- 
thenshire.^     A  continual  state  of  border  warfare  existed  between 

»R.  I,  Ric,  p.  24.  '  R.  I,  Ric,  p.  46. 

3"  Abbas  de  Abbedesbi  redd' Comp' de  2m.  arg.  de  Exercitu  Walliae."  (R.  3,11. 
11,  99.) 

"In  liberatione  Archiariorum  Regis  in  exercitu."  {Ibid.,  89.) 

"  Pro  500  baconibus  et  in  conductu  eorum  ad  Waiiam  52I."     (R.  4,  H.  II,  112.) 

♦Stubbs,  C.  H.,  I,  492. 

SEyton,  Itin.,  62. 

"In  liberacione  militum  et  servientum  in  exercitu  Wallia,  per  Wiliielmum  de 
Bellocampo."    (R.  9,  H.  II,  Glouc.) 


54  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

the  years  1164  and  1167.'  The  Norfolk  Inquisitions  contain 
notices  of  two  campaigns  between  1 166  and  1 170,  one  in  Wales, 
the  other  on  the  continent.^ 

In  1 1 73  (April)  occurred  the  outbreak  of  Prince  Henry's 
rebellion,  in  which  Hugh  Earl  of  Chester,  Robert  Earl  of  Leices- 
ter, Robert  Earl  of  Ferrers  and  others  of  the  Norman-English 
nobility  were  participants. 3  The  king  of  Scotland  also  was 
implicated.  Henry  was  busy  suppressing  the  rebels  in  Normandy, 
while  in  England  the  Earl  of  Cornwall  and  Richard  de  Lucy,  the 
Justiciar,  raised  an  army  called  the  "army  of  Leicester,"  besieged 
that  city  and  reduced  it  to  ashes. 

For  operations  of  this  kind  the  king  relied  either  upon 
partial  levies,  his  household  troops,  or  foreign  mercenaries. 
The  means  of  raising  the  force  of  1157  was  a  special  device. 
The  first  of  the  two  expeditions  to  Wales  in  1165,  which  have 
been  already  referred  to,  was  attended  by  a  levy  upon  a  portion 
of  the  entire  knight  service  of  the  state,  for  the  expedition  was 
of  too  little  significance  to  be  noted  by  more  than  one  chronicler, 
and  the  scutage  was  taken  from  very  few.  Aside  from  tenants 
who  owed  a  term  of  service  by  virtue  of  holding  certain  estates, 
the  king  had  a  body  guard  who  attended  him  wherever  he  went. 
Giraldus  tells  of  the  desertion  of  household  troops  1173,  on 
whom  Henry  specially  depended  to  defend  him.*  Thomas  a 
Becket  is  reported  to  have  been  attended  by  a  band  of  700 
knights  dc  familia  at  the  siege  of  Toulouse  ;s  this  was  far  beyond 
his  possible  number  of  tenants.  Henry  w'as  obliged  to  depend 
upon  10,000  or  more  Brabantine  mercenaries,  who  served  him 
loyally  but  not  for  nothing.^     One  can  almost  trace  the  itinerary 

'Brut.,  204-6.  3Eyton,   Itin.,  172. 

»  Red  Book  of  Exch.,  cclxvii. 

*"Hoc  ei  ad  cumulum  doloris  et  desperationis  accessit,  quod  illi  quoque  quos 
cubicularios  i\h\  milites  elegerat,  in  quorum  manibus  mortem  simul  et  vitam  commiserat, 
qualibet  fere  nocte  ad  filios  hostili  animo  se  transferentes,  mane  requisiti  non  compare- 
bant."    (Gir.  Cam.,  V,  229.) 

"Cum  decern  militibus  de  privata  familia."  (/<^/(/..  223.) 

5"  Cancellarius  de  propria  familia  lactam  manum  septingentos  milites  habebat." 
(Materials  His.  Becket,  III,  33.) 

*  "lis  quoque  qui  sibi  adhaerere   videbantur,  in  gratiam   filii  remisius  agentibus 


LEVIES  OF  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  II  55 

of  the  King,  by  the  records  in  the  Pipe  Rolls  of  the  transmission 
of  treasure  to  the  place  where  the  army  or  court  happened  to  be. 
Thus  in  1174  treasure  was  taken  across  the  sea.'  In  1 187  Welsh 
mercenaries  were  hired  in  anticipation  of  a  war  in  France,  and 
were  paid  out  of  the  Exchequer.^  One  is  reminded  of  the  dis- 
tinction that  is  sometimes  made  in  reference  to  I'ost  and  lachevaii- 
ch^e  of  France.  Lost  is  the  great  expedition,  the  regular  army, 
assembled  for  an  important  war ;  la  chevaitchic  is  an  expedition 
of  little  importance  and  short  duration,  a  military  procedure 
through  an  enemy's  country.  For  ordinary  wars  the  suzerain 
addressed  only  the  nobles  and  those  living  at  no  great  dis- 
tance.3 

It  is  generally  supposed  that  before  the  Scutage  was  made  a 
general  levy  it  was  employed  as  a  means  of  commutation  in 
individual  instances.  The  scutages  of  11 56,  1159,  and  others 
were  of  general  application,  but  there  are  some  traces  in  the 
Pipe  Rolls  of  the  older,  individual  form  remaining.  There  are  a 
number  of  curious  items  which  can  hardly  be  explained  in  any 
other  way. 

In  the  Roll  of  the  second  year  is  the  item  : 

Abbas  de  Westm'  deb.  20I.  de  Scutagio  suo.* 

This  must  have  been  an  arrear  from  a  former  time  and  not  a 
payment  of  the  scutage  of  11 56,  for  the  Abbot  accounts  for 
that  in  another  place. ^  As  the  servitmm  dcbitiun  of  the  Abbot 
of  Westminster  was  15  knights,  the  payment  of  20/.  signifies  a 
rate  of  2ni.  per  fee,  whereas  the  rate  in  1 1  56  was  205.  That  is, 
before  1 156  there  must  have  been  a  scutage  of  2m.  paid  either 

minus  se  credens,  stipendiari  Bribantionum  copias,  quas  Rutas  vocant,  accersivit,  eo 
quod  de  thesauris  regiis,  quibus  in  tali  articulo  parcendum  non  esset,  pecunia  copiosa 
suppeteret."    (Will.  New,  172;    Ben.  Pet.,  I,  51.) 

'"Et  in  liberacione  Esneccae  7I.  los.  quando  Radulfus  clericus  camerae  trans- 
fretavit  cum  thesauro.     (R.  20,  H.  II,  Southampton.) 

'"Et  pro  ducendo  thesauro  de  Oxineford  ad  London'  ad  faciendas  liberaciones 
Welensibus  transfretaturis  in  Normanniam  ad  regem."    (R.  33,  H.  II,  Oxford.) 

3Luchaire,  Manuel,  196.  s  R.  2,  pp.  13  and  63. 

^R.  2,  p.  92. 


56  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

by  the  Abbot  of  Westminster  alone  or  by  a  larger  number. 
The  payment  of  the  Abbot,  however,  is  the  only  one  of  which 
there  is  a  record  remaining.  The  Abbot  was  given  a  respite  for 
this  payment,  and  the  money  is  still  due  in  the  nineteenth 
year.^ 

In  the  Roll  of  the  third  year  is  the  item  : 

Abbas  de  Abbedesbi  redd'  Comp'  de  2m.  arg.  de  Exercitu  Wal.' 

As  the  Abbot  of  Abbotsbury  owed  i  knight,  this  was  a 
payment  of  2ni.  on  the  fee.  It  had  no  connection  with  the 
scutage  of  1156,  as  the  Abbot  also  paid  that.3  He  was  the 
only  one  who  made  any  such  payment  for  the  army  of  Wales 
in  1157. 

There  is  ample  evidence  of  scutages  exacted  by  lords  of 
their  undertenants  independent  of  any  general  levy  by  the  king. 
In  the  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer  are  printed  certain  Inquisi- 
tions made  in  the  counties  of  Norfolk  and  Suffolk  about  11 70. 
Whether  there  were  similar  Inquisitions  made  in  other  counties 
or  not  cannot  be  told.  These  returns  differ  from  those  of  1166 
in  that  they  endeavor  to  inform  the  king  just  how  much  the 
undertenants  are  paying.  The  earlier  inquiries  were  made  of  the 
tenants-in-chief,  the  latter  take  the  point  of  view  of  the  sub- 
tenant.* Among  other  aids,  such  as  to  discharge  the  lord's 
debts,  to  marry  his  daughter,  or  to  knight  his  eldest  son, 
scutages  for  various  armies  are  referred  to  since  the  king  crossed 
the  sea  in  1166.  As  many  as  five  armies  of  Wales  were  paid 
for  by  one  tenant, s  while  most  of  them  paid  for  not  more  than 
two  armies  of  Wales  and  one  "de  ultra  mare."  It  is  to  be  pre- 
sumed that  the  king  permitted  the  barons  to  take  these  scu- 
tages in  return  for  their  service  in  these  campaigns.^     The  rate 

'R.  19,  p.  152.  'R.  3,  99.  3R.  2,  33;  R.  3,  99. 

^"Haec  est  inquisitio  de  manerio  Comitis  Arundeliae  in  Snetesham,  scilicet  quod 
homines  sui  dederunt  postquam  dominus  noster  Rex  Anglorum  extreme  transfretavit 
in  Normanniam,"  etc.     (Red  Rook,  cclxvii.) 

SRed  Rook,  cclxxix. 

*"Hervicus  de  Ingelose  dedit  comiti  Arundeliae  de  Scutagio  ....  per  breve 
Regis  de  ultra  mare,  de  ultimo  exercitu  Franciae,  de  quattuor  militibus,  4I."  (Red 
Book,  cclxxi.) 


LEVIES  OF  SCUTAGE  UNDER  HENRY  11  57 

for  the  Welsh  wars  was  about  2fn.,  though  it  was  not  uniform  ;' 
that  for  "the  last  army  of  France"  was  205.'  The  Pipe  Rolls 
as  well  give  evidence  of  desultory  scutages  paid  by  underten- 
ants where  the  estates  were  held  in  custody  by  the  king.  In 
the  Roll  for  the  nineteenth  year,  in  the  accounts  of  Yorkshire, 
under  the  title,  ''  De  Saitag  militurn  qui  tion  abierunt  i?i  Exercitu 
Legy\"  are  two  entries: 

Rand'  fil'  Walti  redd'  Conip'  de  2qs.  8d.  de  eodcm  Scutagio  p'  vindic- 
tum  suum.^ 

Id'  Vic'  redd'  Comp'  dc  66s.  8d.  de  Scut'  libere  tenentium  de  feod'  de 
Wartra.^ 

No  other  payments  of  scutage  for  the  army  of  Leicester  are 
recorded.  Inasmuch  as  both  Randulf  and  the  fief  of  Wartora 
paid  and  were  acquitted  for  the  scutage  of  Ireland, 3  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  these  payments  are  not  related  to  those  of  the 
former  year.  As  these  parties  in  the  eighteenth  year  paid  for 
3^  and  4y^2-  knights  respectively,  one  may  doubt  if  these  charges 
are  a  scutage  strictly,  but  perhaps  a  fine  for  failure  in  fulfilling 
their  obligations.  A  still  stranger  item  is  in  the  same  Roll : 
the  custos  for  the  Abbey  of  Hyde  "redd'  Comp'  de  15I.  de 
Scut'  militurn  de  exercitu  Scottiae."* 

The  Abbey  also  paid  15/.  for  the  scutage  of  Ireland."*  It  is 
hard  to  see  why  anyone  should  have  spoken  of  the  "army  of 
Scotland."  The  Justiciar  was  engaged  in  the  siege  of  Leices- 
ter when  the  King  of  Scotland,  who  had  been  watching  his 
chance,  marched  down  against  Carlysle.  De  Lucy,  after  taking 
the  town  of  Leicester,  did  not  wait  to  besiege  the  castle,  but 
turned  his  army  northward  after  the  fleeing  King  of  Scotland. 
The  English  army  passed  the  Tweed,  wasting  the  country,  but 
was  soon  called  back  to  defend  the  kingdom  against  Hugh 
Bigod  and  others  who  were  assailing  Norwich. 5  Do  not  the 
instances  here  given  strengthen  the  hypothesis,  already  indi- 
cated, that  the  Scutage  was  intended   primarily   for  church   tcn- 

'Red  Book,  cclxxi.  ■♦R.  19,  p.  57. 

'R.  19,  p.  10.  sWill.  New.,  177. 

3R.  18,  p.  61. 


58  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

ants  and  subtenants  ?  The  institution  generally  implies  in  the 
first  place  the  rendition  by  the  lord  of  service  or  payment  to  the 
king,  and  in  the  second  place  the  collection  in  turn  of  the  money 
from  his  tenants.  That  the  payments  by  the  lower  grades  of 
holders  were  so  common  suggests  that  the  custom  began  with 
them  and  thence  worked  its  way  to  the  upper  ranks. 


CHAPTER  III. 

EFFECTS    OF    THE    SCUTAGE,    AND    CONDITION    OF    KNIGHT    SERVICE 
UNDER     HENRY    II. 

The  relation  of  king  to  tenant-in-chief  had  its  counterpart  in 
the  relation  of  baron  to  subtenant.  The  baron  might  grant  his 
lands  upon  terms  of  whatever  kind  of  tenure  and  whatever 
amount  of  service  he  chose  or  was  able  to  impose.  He  could 
not  rightfully  call  upon  his  men  to  go  to  war  unless  he  himself 
was  summoned  by  the  king,  nor  could  he  demand  scutage, 
except  as  the  scutage  "  ran  through  the  kingdom,"  to  use  a 
common  expression  of  the  day,  for  the  right  of  private  war  did 
not  exist  in  England.  One  finds  where  agreements  were  made 
between  lord  and  tenant  upon  the  subject,  the  scutage  of  the 
tenant  was  to  be  rated  in  jjroportion  to  the  scutage  of  the  king.' 
Yet  it  does  not  follow  that  the  tenants  of  barons  always  paid  as 
much  per  fee  as  the  rate  which  was  set  by  the  king.  When 
baronies  were  "in  the  king's  hand"  and  the  tenants  paid  to  the 
king  just  as  they  otherwise  would  pay  to  their  lords,  it  may  be 
seen  that  they  did  not  necessarily  pay  the  same;  e.  g.,  on  certain 
baronies  in  the  14th  year  tenants  were  paying  2>s.  i\d.  for  each 
knight  instead  of  im.,  and  in  the  i8th  year  they  likewise  paid 
I  of  the  regular  rate.'  In  11 73  the  lands  of  the  Earl  of  Leices- 
ter were  seized  by  the  king,  and  one  person  who  held  of  the 
Earl   paid    \m.   for  i    knight,  whereas  the  scutage  of   1172   was 

'"Saher  concessit  Matild'  et  heredibus  suis  illos  duo  solidatos  redditus  cum  omni- 
bus pertinenciis  tenendos  de  se  et  heredibus  suis  ipperpetuum  reddendo  inde  annuatim 
duodecim  denarios  ....  et  ad  exercitum  Regis  ad  viginti  solidos.  quinque  denarios 
et  ad  plus  plus,  et  ad  minus  minus."  (P'eet  of  Fines,  7,  Ric.  I,  197.) 

•  "  Rob.  de  Bellocampo  redd'  Comp'  de  7I.  2od.  pro  17  Mil.  scl  de  unoquoque  Mil. 
8s.  4d.  de  feodo  Comitis  de  Moret'."  (  R.  14,  142.) 

"Id'  redd'  Comp'  de  53s.  2d.  de  6  Mil'  et  dim.  de  feodo  de  Monte  Acuto."  (R.  14, 
ibid;  R.  14,  p.  144.) 

59 


6o  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

\  regularly  i  /.'  Perhaps  there  is  some  excuse  here  for  the  barons 
having  a  greater  number  of  enfeofments  on  their  estates  than 
the  amount  of  their  scrvitium  dcbitum. 

It  has  been  shown  how  the  churchmen  and  small  tenants  in 
capite  took  to  the  Scutage  foremost  and  most  naturally.  How 
was  it  with  the  great  barons  ?  They  began  to  assign  fiefs  imme- 
diately after  the  general  allotments  of  the  Conqueror,  but  the 
process  was  not  spontaneous,  but  gradual  and  adapted  to  indi- 
vidual conditions.  The  process  of  division  and  subdivision 
went  on  indefinitely,  and  the  reports  of  1166,  making  a  distinc- 
tion between  old  enfeofments  and  new  enfeofments,  indicate 
how  many  fiefs  had  been  created  before  the  death  of  Henry  I 
and  how  many  since  that  time.  The  payments  made  in  1168 
will  give  an  idea  to  what  extent  new  enfeofments  had  been 
created.  The  cartae  of  1166  show  to  what  extent  the  baronies 
were  cut  up  into  quite  small  holdings.  The  Earl  of  Clare 
rendered  account  for  131  knights'  fees  and  f  and  \  and  \ 
and  \  and  \  and  y^^j^  and  /^  parts;'  the  Abbess  of  St.  Edwards 
in  her  cartel  acknowledged  7  knights,  each  holding  one  or  two 
fees,  but  of  new  enfeofments  there  were  tenants  holding  respec- 
tively 4-,  y,  i,  J,  -g,  ^,  3^,  y,  \,  \,  \  fees. 3  Sevenths,  twelfths,  twen- 
tieths of  fees  are  to  be  met  with.*  The  new  enfeofments  are 
more  apt  to  contain  such  fractional  parts  than  old  enfeofments. 
The  cartae  of  1166  represent  the  process  of  infeudation  at  one 
stage  of  its  growth.  The  division  of  fees  was  still  to  go  on 
after  that  time.  These  tenures  on  their  face  render  a  presump- 
tion that  the  obligations  were  not  rendered  by  personal  service. 
In  the  case  of  halves  and  thirds  it  would  have  been  possible  for 
the  holders  to  combine  with  one  another  to  furnish  a  knight, 
but  in  the  instances  cited  any  rendition  of  active  service  would 
have  been  a  too  complex  problem.  The  barons,  therefore,  were 
obliged  in  some  degree  to  accept  the  services  of  their  tenants  in 

""Hugode  Berkineol  redd' Comp' de  im.  de  Scut.  p.  i  Milite  q'  tenebat  de 
Comite."     (R.  19,  p.  67.) 

■R.  14,  p.  20,  and  Lib.  Nig.,  292.  *  Feet  of  Fines,  7,  Ric.  I,  56. 

JLib.  Nig.,  78. 


EFFECTS  OF  SCUT  AGE  AND  CONDITION  OF  KNIGHT  SERVICE        6 1 

money.  The  tenants  of  integral  fees  were  often  as  undesirous 
of  doing  personal  service  as  those  holding  fractional  parts,  and 
the  barons,  not  finding  it  practicable  to  array  their  tenants,  were 
in  turn  glad  of  an  opportunity  to  pay  the  scutage  of  the  king. 
It  was  for  the  interest  of  the  baron  to  keep  up  the  military  charac- 
ter of  his  tenants,  and  to  see  that  persons  granted  lands  were 
capable  at  arms.  A  lord  could  insert  in  the  charter  of  a  tenant 
that  there  should  always  be  persons  of  knightly  rank  to  perform 
the  service,  and  the  lord  might  have  a  choice  in  the  knights 
whom  the  tenant  would  place  on  his  land  to  perform  the  ser- 
vice.' If  a  lord  was  unable  to  secure  the  due  service  of  his  ten- 
ant the  case  might  be  tried  in  the  king's  court,  and  the  tenant 
receive  a  writ  to  perform  his  full  service.' 

In  the  Fine  Rolls  of  Richard  I,  which  are  the  earliest  records 
we  have  of  this  kind,  it  is  possible  to  learn  the  terms  upon  which 
barons  were  granting  their  lands. 

1.  Grants  in  frankalmoign  to  ecclesiastical  institutions,  that 
is,  "free  and  quit"  of  all  secular  services,  had  always  been  made 
to  some  extent  by  both  king  and  lords.  Knights'  fees  as  well 
as  other  kinds  of  land  were  transformed  in  this  way .3 

2.  To  some  extent  knights'  fees  were  granted  on  terms  of  a 

'1133-60.  "Carta  ....  Walterus  de  Bolebeche,  Waltero  Abbati  de  Ramesia  et 
caeteribus  abbatibus  sequentibus  ejusdem  loci,  donavit  terrain  de  Waltona  ....  per 
servitium  duorum  militum  .  .  .  .  et  de  hoc  pacto  Walterus  abbas  fecit  eum  securum 
per  duos  milites,  cjuos  abbas  posuit  in  suo  loco,  ....  et  si  aliquis  eorum  moriatur, 
alium  ponat  in  loco  suo  abbas  per  electionem  domini  Walteri  de  Bolebech  aut  heredis 
sui.  Et  si  alius  abbas  venerit,  iterum  faciei  dominum  Walterum  de  Bolebech  securum, 
vel  heredum  suum,  de  hoc  eodem  pacto,  per  alios  duos  milites  in  electione  Walteri  vel 
heredis  sui,  si  alios  habere  voluerit  et  is  forisfecerit,  abbas  aliquid  erga  dominum 
Walterum,  unde  velit  eum  implacitare,  in  curia  sua  veniet,  et  faciet  ei  rectuni  sicut  de 
laico  feodo."  (Cart.  Ramsey,  I,  153.) 

»"  Henricus  (I)  ....  Rualloni  salutem.  Praecipio  quod  facias  abbati  Ramesia 
domino  tuo  servitium  et  auxilium  quod  ei  juste  facere  debes  de  terra  sua,  et  nisi  fece- 
ris  ipse  te  justificet  per  pecuniam  tuam  donee  facias."  (Chron.  Abb.  Ram.,  232.) 

3 "Concordia  facta  in  Curia  Regis  ....  intra  Robertum  de  Mortuo  Mari  petentem 
et  Priorem  de  Lewwes  tenentem  .  .  .  .  de  quarta  parte  uni  militis  ....  quod  prae- 
dictus  Rob.  concessit  priori  de  Lewwes  tenere  in  perpetuum  libere  et  quiete  praedic- 
tam  feodi  unius  militis  cum  omnibus  pertinentiis  suis  in  Ilecgham."  (Feet  of  tines,  3, 
Ric.  I,  10.     See  Polluck  and  Maitland,  His.  Eng.  Law,  I,  218.) 


62  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

payment  of  rent.'  This  represents  the  general  tendency  now 
beginning  to  exchange  knight  tenure  for  socage  tenure,  yet  it 
does  not  follow  that  every  knight's  fee  placed  at  a  rental 
became  a  socage  tenure.  Land  was  in  this  way  given  for  the 
dowry  of  a  daughter  for  a  nominal  return.^ 

Whenever  a  mesne  lord  relieved  a  fief  of  its  obligations  to 
military  service  or  any  other  kind  of  service,  those  services  had 
to  be  met  from  the  lord's  demesne.  It  was  particularly  to 
churches  that  such  immunities  were  granted,  and  this  process 
was  carried  on  to  such  an  extent  that  in  the  charter  of  1217  it 
was  provided  that  no  free  man  should  give  or  sell  so  much  of 
his  land  that  from  the  remaining  portion  the  service  which 
belonged  to  that  fief  could  not  be  sufficiently  rendered. 3 

3.  To  a  considerable  extent  lands  were  granted  for  a  return 
both  of  money  and  knight  service.  Such  tenures  existed  as 
early  as  Henry  I,"*  but  they  were  not  at  that  time  common.  By 
the  time  of  Richard  I  they  were  quite  numerous. 

The  knight  service  in  these  cases  is  generally  to  be  rendered 
by  scutage.5  It  might  seem  that  these  holdings  were  a  combi- 
nation of  socage  and  knight  tenure,  but  they  were  considered 
military  tenures.  Says  Bracton,  "if  he  superadd  (to  a  rental) 
scutage  and  a  royal  service,  although  for  one-half  penny  or  a 
serjeantry,  according  to  what  has  been  said,  that  may  be  called 
a  military  fief."^ 

A  mesne  lord  often  let  out  his  land  for  a  rent  "for  every 
service   saving   forinsec  service  ;"7  that   is,  the   tenant   paid   an 


'"  Praedictus  Greg' concessit  praedicto  et  haeredibus  praedictum  feodum  dimid' 
militis.  .  .  .  p' decern  solidarios  annuatim  inde  reddendos  pro  omni  servicio."  (Feet  of 
F"ines,  3,  Ric.  I,  19.) 

'Ancient  Charters,  Ed.  Round,  No.  12. 

3  Second  Charter  Hen.  Ill,  §39.     Sel.  Char.,  346. 

*■  A  grant  by  the  Abbot  of  Ramsey  was  for  1005.  and  the  service  of  one  knight. 
(Chron.  Abb.  Ram.,  260.) 

s  Feet  of  Fines,  Ric.  I,  passim.  *  Bracton,  De  Legibus,  I,  293. 

7"Gregorius  concessit  praedicto  Osberto  et  heredibus  suis  tenere  pdictum  feodum 
dimid  militis  cum  pertinentiis.  .  .  .  p'  decem  Solidos  annuatim  inde  reddendos  pro 
omni  servicio.  .  .  .  Salvo  servicio  Domini  Regis."     (Feet  of  Fines,  6,  Ric,  191.) 


EFFECTS  OF  SCUT  AGE  AND  CONDITION  OF  KNIGHT  SERVICE         63 

only  when  the  king  called  for  service.^  It  is  not  to  be  regarded 
that  the  lords  imposed  rents  as  an  extra  burden  in  addition  to 
the  military  service  already  incumbent  on  the  land."*  Lands  had 
to  be  granted  at  their  market  price.  It  is  obvious  that  rents 
were  becoming  the  more  popular  form  of  obligation  with  the 
small  holder ;  there  still  had  to  be  some  means  of  discharging 
the  duties  imposed  by  the  king.  The  two  modes  of  discharging 
obligations  would  naturally  adjust  themselves.  It  is  obvious 
that  among  the  small  tenants  military  fiefs  were  somewhat  of 
an  anomaly.  The  increasing  use  of  the  words  "carucate," 
"bovate,"  "acre,"  referring  to  military  lands,  suggests  the  agri- 
cultural habits  of  the  small  military  holder. 

The  subject  of  the  effects  of  the  Scutage  may  now  be  taken 
up.  The  Scutage  of  Henry  II  has  been  called  "a  blow  at 
feudalism,"  and  a  "disarming  of  the  feudal  party."  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  the  Scutage  was  one  of  the  strongest  anti- 
feudal  influences  of  the  period,  but  it  has  not  been  fairly  treated 
as  to  the  way  in  which  it  operated.  It  has  been  held  that  the 
Scutage  broke  the  power  of  the  feudal  party  by  imposing  a 
heavy  weight  of  taxation. ^  It  has  been  clearly  shown  in  this 
essay  that  the  scutage  was  at  no  time  as  large  a  contribution  as 
has  been  supposed. •>  The  money  for  the  great  campaigns  was 
usually  raised  in  greater  part  by  other  dona.  In  1 1  56  the  dofia 
of  counties  and  towns  were  nearly  2000/.,  the  scutage  about 
500/.;  in  1 1  59,  out  of  a  levy  of  12000/.,  the  scutage  was  about 
2500/.;  in  i(t)6i  the  dojium  from  the  towns  was  840/.,  the  scutage 

'  Two  bovates  held  for  one  pound  of  pepper,  saving  forinsec  service.  (Fines,  Ric, 
35.)  A  messuage  and  7  virgates  held  at  24^.  annually  besides  royal  service  of  one-half 
knight.     (Fines,  ed.  Hunter,  274.) 

'  Polluck  and  Maitland,  Hist.  Eng.  Law,  I,  256. 

3 "  After  the  privileged  landed  proprietors,  from  the  greatest  crown  vassal  down 
to  the  lowest,  had  been  subjected  to  heavy  money  contributions,  which  were  equiva- 
lent to  the  actual  burdens  of  feudal  service,  that  impediment  had  been  overcome  in 
England  which  on  the  continent  caused  the  failure  of  land  and  income  tax."  (Gneist, 
C.  H.,  I,  214.) 

*  "But  such  a  measure  (the  scutage)  implies  that  the  whole  country  was  already 
divided  into  knights'  fees.  And  for  the  next  two  centuries  the  knight's  fee  was  the 
unit  of  reckoning  for  most  military  and  many  financial  purposes."     (Const.  Essays,  57.) 


64  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

975/.;  in  1 165  the  greater  amount  was  raised  by  the  domim  of 
the  towns,  and  the  do?mm  of  Serjeants  ;  in  1 168,  when  the  fairest 
comparison  may  be  made,  besides  several  other  dona,  the 
donum  of  the  towns  was  4500/.,  and  the  scutage  4000/.  The 
amounts  of  scutage  in  the  aggregate  were  not  sufficient  to  sup- 
port the  several  expeditions,  neither  in  the  individual  case  was 
the  scutage  of  a  knight  equivalent  to  his  actual  service,  for  out 
of  the  eight  times  the  scutage  was  imposed  only  twice  was  the 
rate  as  high  as  27n.,  which  can  be  considered  such  an  equivalent. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Scutage,  apart  from  other 
dona,  was  considered  oppressive  under  Henry  II  by  the  knight 
tenants.  When  the  churchmen  and  people  complained  it 
was  more  likely  because  of  the  arbitrary  tallages,  which  might 
well  seem  unreasonable.  The  new  feature,  introduced  in  the 
levy  of  1168,  of  charging  the  barons  according  to  the  fees  they 
had  created,  instead  of  the  amount  of  service  they  were  accus- 
tomed to  render,  was  naturally  disliked,  and  the  payments  for 
knights  "new  enfeofment"  or  "which  he  does  not  acknowledge" 
were  made  reluctantly,  as  we  may  see  in  the  arrears  of  succeed- 
ing years  in  the  Pipe  Rolls.  But,  on  the  whole,  if  the  amounts 
of  arrears  are  a  criterion,  no  tax  was  more  promptly  and  cheer- 
fully paid.  The  most  potent  anti-feudal  influence  of  the  Scutage 
was  not  the  way  in  which  it  affected  the  barons  directly.  That 
a  few  of  them  were  disposed  to  stay  at  home  at  times  instead  of 
attending  the  army  made  little  difference.  The  way  in  which 
the  barons  themselves  extended  the  S3'stem  of  shield  money  and 
rents  in  return  for  military  lands  did  the  most  to  take  away 
from  the  knight  tenants  their  military  character.  Service  in  the 
army  and  the  pursuit  of  husbandry  did  not  go  well  together. 
Influenced  partly  by  the  Crusades  and  the  upgrowth  of  the 
spirit  of  chivalry,  considerable  skill  was  required  of  a  man  at 
arms.  Troops  of  knights  are  sometimes  referred  to  by  the 
chroniclers  as  '' peritissimi  milites,"  '' Icctissimi  milites,"  ''electa 
militia,"  and  it  is  often  worth  the  while  for  a  chronicler  to  men- 
tion knights  by  name.'  The  knights  were  the  flower  of  the 
»  "In  Flandria  quidam  miles  nomine  Valterus  de   Fontanis."      (Ben.  Pet.,  I,  99.) 


EFFECTS  OF  SCUT  AGE  AND  CONDITION  OF  KNIGHT  SERVICE        65 

army,  but  the  infantry  was  of  considerable  consequence.  An 
army  regularly  consisted  of  ''?nilites  et  servientes."^  The  army 
organization  was  more  complex  than  formerly.  The  Assize  of 
Arms  created  three  classes  of  soldiers  besides  the  knights.^ 
The  Serjeants  were  employed  as  cavalry  as  well  as  infantry,  and 
the  cavalry  seems  to  have  been  paid  three  times  as  much  as  the 
infantry .3     Archers  were  also  employed. 

Seventeen  Brabantine  knights  were  captured  "quorum  nomina  haec  sunt,"  (Hoved., 
II,  51,  55,  etc.) 

'1 165.  In  Wales  :  "  multos  tamen  ex  suis  tarn  milites  quam  pedites  perdidit." 
(Gervase,  I,  197.) 

1 185.  "Johannes.  ...  in  Hiberniam  cum  copiosa  equitum  peditunicjue  multi- 
tudine."     (Ben.  Pet.,  I,  339.) 

1 186.  Richard  against  the  Count  of  Toulouse  "copiosam  militum  peditumque 
multitudinem  collegit."     [Ibid,,  345.) 

1 187.  King.  '.  .  .  "cum  copiosa  militum  et  servientium  multitudine  venit  usque 
L'overam."     {Ibid.,  II,  4.) 

^Sel.  Char.,  154. 

3"Et  in  liberacione  250  servientum  peditum  qui  abierunt  praecepto  Regis  ultra 
mare  16I.  13s.  4d.  Et  in  liberacione  38  servientum  equitutn  qui  similiter  abierunt  ultra 
mare  7I.  12s."     (R,  33,  Shropshire.) 


CHAPTER  IV. 

SCUTAGE  OF  RICHARD  AND  JOHN. 

After  the  time  of  Henry  H  it  is  not  possible  to  scrutinize 
each  levy  of  the  Scutage  as  could  be  done  with  the  aid  of  the 
Exchequer  rolls,  but  it  will  be  profitable  to  note  the  progress 
of  the  Scutage  as  an  institution  and  its  effect  on  the  conditions 
of  knight  tenure.  Under  Richard  the  same  administrative 
methods  went  on,  but  there  were  lacking  the  vigor  and  perpetual 
oversight  of  his  father.  The  great  political  ofificers  of  the  king- 
dom were  quarrelsome  among  themselves,  and  the  sheriffs  were 
rapacious  and  corrupt.  A  Scutage  of  Wales  appears  in  the  Rolls 
for  the  second  year  of  Richard.'  The  method  of  assessment  for 
old  and  new  enfeofments  seems  not  to  have  been  carried  out. 
Richard  de  Muntfichet  rendered  account  of  his  knights  old 
enfeofment  only,*  while,  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  Henry  H, 
William  de  Muntfichet  of  the  same  county  paid  both  for  old  and 
new  enfeofments. 3  Most  paid  simply  ''pro  militibiis  S7iis."  The 
campaign  in  question  was  probably  that  of  the  fall  of  1 189,  when 
Richard  sent  John  against  the  Welsh.  The  expedition  soon 
came  to  an  end,  as  peace  was  made  with  the  Welsh  king  at 
Worcester  before  the  army  reached  Wales. '^  This  will  account 
for  the  rate  of  the  levy  being  so  low  as  \os. 

The  levy  of  the  famous  ransom  of  Richard  was  collected  in 
the  years  1193  and  1194.  It  would  be  the  most  interesting  of 
any  levy  thus  far,  but  unfortunately  the  Roll  of  the  fifth  year  is 
lost.  Some  things,  however,  may  be  inferred  from  what  has 
been  learned  of  other  levies.     The  sum  to  be  raised  was  100,000/. 

'There  is  a  single  item  of  Scutage  "propter  IValens"'  in  the  first  year.  (R.  i, 
Ric,  p.  S-) 

'  R.  3,  Ric.     See  Madox,  I,  637.  ••  Ben.  Pet.,  II,  87. 

3R.  14,  Hen.  II,  p.  38. 


SCUTAGE  OF  RICHARD  AND  JOHN  67 

altogether,  but  100,000;;/.  was  all  that  was  to  be  attempted 
before  the  actual  release  of  the  King.'  The  ransom  was  an 
occasion  for  one  of  the  three  customary  aids,  but  it  was  not 
merely  a  feudal  levy.  All  the  means  both  of  feudal  and  national 
taxation  were  brought  to  bear. 

I.  A  scutage,  under  the  circumstances,  would  naturally  be  the 
first  expedient  thought  of.  A  rate  of  20  s.  on  the  fee  was  not 
above  the  average.  To  compare  the  accounts  with  those  of 
1 1 72,  William  de  Warenne  paid  14/.  55.,  the  same  as  Reginald 
de  Warenne  in  1 172  ;'  William  de  Dammartin,  20.y.,  the  same  as 
Alberic  de  Dammartin  in  1172;^  the  Abbot  of  Burg  rendered 
account  for  60/.,  while  in  1 172  the  same  rendered  account  for  60/. 
for  knights  '' qtios  recognoscit,"  and  also  75  .y.  for  knights  '' qtios 
non  recogtioscit ;" ^  the  Bishop  of  Chester,  i  5  /.,  the  same  as  in  1 1 72  ; 
the  Archbishop  of  York  rendered  account  for  20  /.,  while  in  1 1 72 
he  rendered  account  for  20/.  and  23/.  10 s.  for  knights  '' quos 
7ion  recognoscit ;'' '■  Henry  de  Tilli  rendered  account  for  14/. 
155.  de  scutagio,  while  in  1172  William  fitz  John  owes  14/.  it,s. 
scutage,  "  which  ought  to  be  required  of  Henry  de  Tilli,"  and 
the  same  owes  20  .f.  new  enfeofment ;  ^  the  Earl  of  Warwick 
renders  account  in  the  seventh  year  of  Richard  for  100/.  46s. 
8d.,  which  is  the  scutage  of  102^  knights;  in  the  fourteenth 
year  of  Henry  H  the  Earl  of  Warwick  rendered  account  for 
1025^  knights  old  enfeofmcnt  and  for  2  knights  new  enfeof- 
ment.^ 

It  is  evident  that  the  experiment  made  in  1 168  and  11 72  to 
levy  upon  all  the  enfeofments  of  the  barons  was  not  repeated. 
The  charges  for  "new  enfeofments"  and  for  knights  " qi/os  ?wn 
rccopwscif  had  remained  nothing  but  idle  records,  and  noth- 
ing is  longer  claimed  for  these  extra  knights.  The  Churchmen 
paid  according  to  their  servithitn  debitum,  just  as   in   the   earlier 

'IIov.,  Ill,  215.  *Madox,//i/(3'.     K.  14,  Henry  II,  p.  59. 

•Madox,  I,  590.     18,  Henry  II,  p.  30. 
3Madox,  I,  591.     R.  18,  Henry  II,  p.  37. 
*  Madox,  ibU.     R.  18,  Henry  II,  p.  61. 
5  Madox,  ibU.     R.  18,  Henry  II,  p.  76. 


68  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

scutages,   while    the    lay  tenants    paid    for    "old   enfeofments,' 
according  to  their  curiae  of  1166. 

As  to  the  amount  which  was  raised  by  this  scutage,  Stubbs 
says,  "the  sum  thus  levied  must  have  amounted  to  not  less  than 
25,000/.,  if  rigorously  collected;  but  it  was  probably  assessed 
on  the  old  system,  and  if  so  would  not  amount  to  more  than 
12,000  /."  ' 

The  words  of  the  great  historian  indicate  a  singular  misap- 
prehension, not  only  of  the  levy  in  question,  but  of  the  scutage 
in  general,  as  it  existed  under  Henry  II.  In  the  first  place,  if 
one  will  notice  the  statistics  given  in  connection  with  the  aid  of 
1 168,  it  will  appear  at  a  glance  that  the  difference  between  the 
amounts  under  the  old  system  of  collecting  and  the  new  was 
nothing  like  the  ratio  of  difference  between  25,000/.  and  12,000/. 
The  new  system  affected  only  the  tenants  of  the  upper  class, and 
with  them  the  amounts  which  they  had  to  pay  under  the  new 
arrangement  would  not  on  the  average  compare  with  those  under 
the  old  in  a  ratio  of  2  to  i ,  but  rather,  if  I  may  hazard  such  a  con- 
jecture, in  the  ratio  of  at  most  5  to  4.  In  the  second  place,  the 
figure  12,000/.,  to  say  nothing  of  25,000/.,  is  far  above  what  any 
scutage  could  possibly  be.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  aid 
of  1 168  was  the  most  extensively  applied  and  most  rigorously 
collected  of  any  scutage  that  has  thus  far  been  levied.  The 
amount  was  4000/.,  the  rate  being  i  m.  Therefore,  if  the  collec- 
tion of  the  ransom  was  as  thoroughly  carried  out  as  was  the  aid 
to  marry  the  daughter,  the  total  amount  would  have  been  between 
5000/.  and  6000/.  But  nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  that 
the  imposition  was  not  carried  out  conscientiously.  The  sheriffs 
in  ofifice  were  a  corrupt  class  of  men.  William  of  Newburgh  may 
refer  to  the  sheriffs  when  he  lays  the  blame  for  the  insufficiency 
of  the  returns  upon  the  "fraud  of  the  executors."^  Aside  from 
this  a  large  number  of  barons  were  acquitted  by  writs,  by  virtue 
of  their  seats  in  the  Exchequer,  while  others  were  acquitted  by 
the  king  himself  on  the  ground  of  having  accompanied  the  king 

'Stubbs,  Pref.  Rog.  Hov.,  IV,  Ixxxiv. 

'  "  Quod  accidisse  creditur  per  fraudem  executorum."    (Will.  New.,  Lib.  IV,  c.  38.) 


SCUT  AGE  OF  RICHARD  AND  JOHN  69 

in  an  army  of  Normandy.'  For  example,  in  Norfolk  and 
Suffolk,  the  Earl  of  Clare,  the  Earl  of  Arundel,  Robert  de  Tres- 
goz,  the  Bishop  of  Ely  were  thus  acquitted  ;  in  Yorkshire,  knights 
to  the  value  of  162/.;  in  Warwick  and  Leicestershire,  the  Earl 
of  Chester,  Earl  David,  Hugh  of  Say,  the  Earl  of  Ferrers,  the 
Earl  of  Albermarle,  Richard  Basset,  William  dc  Longchamp, 
Robert  Marmion,  etc.  As  these  persons  were  some  of  the  chief 
barons  who  had  the  largest  number  of  knights,  it  is  at  once  evi- 
dent how  the  total  amount  was  considerably  reduced.  Accord- 
ing to  the  transcripts  of  the  Rolls  made  in  the  Red  Book,  the 
entire  sum  of  the  scutage  recorded  for  the  ransom  was  about 
3432/.,  exclusive  of  the  exemptions.  Hoveden  speaks  of  four 
special  officers  being  appointed  as  guardians  of  the  ransom.*  It 
is  hardly  to  be  supposed  that  any  scutage  could  have  been  raised 
outside  the  ordinary  process  of  the  Exchequer.^  A  part  would 
not  have  been  accounted  for  at  the  Exchequer,  and  another  part 
in  some  other  way.  The  conclusions  thus  reached  harmonize 
with  the  general  view  of  Stubbs,  that  "  the  scutage  of  1 194  would 
produce  no  more  than  those  of  Henry  H's  reign  ;"<  only  Stubbs 
misapprehended  the  scutages  of  Henry  H.^ 

H.  A  hidage  or  caritcage  at  a  rate  of  25.  on  the  hide  or  caru- 
cate  was  levied  on  lands  other  than  military.  The  amount  is 
said  to  be  5000/.,  or  nearly  the  same  as  the  ancient  Danegeld. 
The  tax  may  be  regarded  as  a  revival  of  the  principle  involved  in 
the  Danegeld,  and  was  levied  according  to  the  hidage  assess- 
ments of  Domesday.  It  did  not  exist  in  the  donums  of  Henry 
II,  as  Stubbs  has  supposed.^  It  has  been  the  effort  in  the  first 
part  of  this  essav  to  show  that  the  various  donums  of  Henry  II 
were  at  first  arbitrary  assessments  upon  classes  of  people  and 
lands  other  than  military.  These  prepared  the  way  for  a  system 
of  taxation  upon  such  lands  according  to  a  fixed  principle,  as  in 
the  hidage. 

'"Iti  habent  Quietantiam  per  Regem,  quia  fuerunt  cum  eo  in  exercitu  Nor- 
manniae."    (See  Madox,  I,  591.) 

»  Hoved.,  Ill,  212.  5  See  Preface  Ben.  Pet.,  II. 

3Stubbs,  Pref.  to  Hov.,  Ill,  83,  note.  «Hov.  Preface,  84. 

''Ibid.,  p.  84,  note  i. 


70  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

III.  The  grant  of  one-fourth  of  the  revenue  and  mobilia 
on  the  part  of  all  persons,  clergy  and  lay,  comprised  the  largest 
part  of  the  money  required.  It  is  not  possible  that  an  actual 
fourth  was  raised,  as  there  was  no  adequate  method  of  assess- 
ment of  a  man's  wealth  by  a  jury,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Saladin 
tythe ;  but  thenceforth  large  subsidies  were  to  be  raised  by  this 
kind  of  taxation. 

IV.  All  the  wool  of  the  Cistercians  and  Gilbertines. 

V.  The  gold  and  silver  implements  of  the  churches.' 

It  was  perhaps  because  of  the  unusual  character  of  such  a 
demand  that  Richard  in  his  letter  to  England  asking  for  aid, 
while  not  directing  any  of  the  other  forms  of  levy,  especially 
enjoins  that  of  the  gold  and  silver  of  the  churches.^ 

There  is  a  passage  in  William  of  Newburgh  which  has  caused 
difificulty  of  explanation,  wherein  he  states  that  a  first  collection 
of  the  aid  was  found  insufficient,  and  the  ministers  resorted  to  a 
second  and  again  a  third  collection. 3  As  to  what  is  meant  by  a 
first,  second,  and  third  collection  some  light  is  given  by  a  roll 
of  the  Curia  Regis  for  1194.'^  In  September  of  that  year  jus- 
tices itinerant  were  sent  out  to  try  pleas,  with  the  aid  of  a  jury 
in  each  hundred,  and  among  other  things  they  were  given  direc- 
tions to  ascertain  "concerning  all  the  aids  given  for  the  ransom 
of  the  king,  how  much  each  one  promised,  how  much  he  has 
contributed,  how  much  he  is  in  arrear."^  The  justices  rendered 
their  reports  on  the  aids  for  each  hundred  visited.  As  an 
example  of  these  reports  : 

"  Siimma  primi  auxiL,  2i-i,\.  i8s.  4d.     Adam  clericus  vicecomes  recepit. 
Sumtna  secundi  aiixil.,  12I.  los.  quos  Thorn,  clericus  recepit. 
Siimma  hidagii,  7I.  14  sol.  quos  Thom.  clericus  recepit. 
Sumvia  Totius,  S4I.  2s.  4d."* 

'  The  analysis  is  taken  from  Stubbs'  Preface  to  Hoveden,  III,  with  amendments 
and  additions. 

'Hov.,  Ill,  209.  ■*  Pipe  Roll  Soc,  vol.  14. 

3"Denique  propter  hanc  primae  collationis  insufficientam,  ministri  regii  secundam 
tertiamque  instaurant."     (Will.  New,  Lib.  IV.,  c.  38.) 

5  "  Item  de  omnibus  auxiliis  datis  ad  redemptionem  domini  regis,  quis  quantum 
promiserit,  et  quantum  reddiderit,  et  quantum  a  retro  sit."     (Hov.,  Ill,  263.) 

«  R.  Curia  Regis  (Ed.  Maitland),  78. 


SCUT  AGE  OF  RICHARD  AND  JOHN  7  I 

This  is  the  form  which  generally  appears  for  each  hundred, 
but  a  few  variations  of  form  give  additional  information.  The 
first  aid  was  certainly  the  fourth,  as  it  is  sometimes  called  such  ; 
e.g.,  '' Siimma  primi aiixilii  de  Quarto.''^  The  hidage  is  also  called 
the  third  aid  or  tallage.''  The  second  aid  is  harder  to  define. 
It  was  not  a  scutage,  for  in  some  hundreds  the  scutage  return  is 
given,  and  the  second  aid  bears  no  relation  to  it;^  neither  is  it 
another  levy  of  the  fourth  or  hidage,  for  it  bears  no  constant 
relation  to  either.  The  second  aid  is  once  given  in  this  form  : 
''  Summa  de  assisa  decern  solidoriim,  5m.  ;"*  and  again,  '^  De  10  sol, 
et  CO  amplitis."^  Assisa  is  an  old  word  which  sometimes  appears 
instead  of  donum  in  the  Rolls  of  Henry  II.  Evidently  there  is 
some  form  of  do?ium  in  the  "  second  aid"  which  is  not  men- 
tioned bv  the  chroniclers,  and  so  does  not  appear  in  the  scheme 
given  above.  It  was  something  based  on  an  assessment  of  "  10/. 
and  upward,"  whether  in  land  or  other  property.^  It  may  have 
been  a  special  imposition  upon  the  richer  class.  William  of 
Newburgh  speaks  particularly  of  the  rich  being  despoiled. ^  It 
will  be  remembered  that  in  the  aid  of  1168  there  was  a  special 
dofium  "■  de promissione''  on  the  part  of  the  richer  ecclesiastics  and 
some  others.  This  levy,  however,  was  of  a  more  general  char- 
acter. 

Only  in  several  instances  do  the  reports  say  anything  about 
the  scutage.^  It  cannot  be  known  to  what  extent  scutage 
accounts  were  rendered  in  the  year  1194,  but  very  many  were 
not  rendered  till  the  following  year.  The  facts  as  here  given 
indicate  that  the  ransom  was  raised,  not  by  a  variety  of  contri- 
butions all  levied  at  once,  but  by  a  succession  of  impositions 
extending  over  two  years  and  more.  First  was  the  fourth,  then 
the  "  10  shillings  and  upward"  tax,  then  the  hidage,  the  scutage, 
and  finallv  the  gold  and  silver  of  the  churches.'      Not  all  of  the 

■  R.  Curia  Regis  (Ed.  Maitland),  108.  ^  Ibid.,  91. 

''Ibid.,  108.  «See  Introd.  of  Roll  of  Curia  Regis  (Ed.  Maitland). 

3  Ibid.,  109.  7 "  Quosque  locupletiores  pecuniis  spoliant."  (IV,  3S.) 

''Ibid.,  95.  8  R.  Cur.  Reg.,  86,  109. 

»"  Postremo  ad  vasa  sacra  ventum  est."    (Will.  New,  ibid.) 


72  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

ransom,  but  probably  the  greater  part,  was  raised  in  England.' 
Under  Richard  there  were  a  second  and  a  third  scutage  of 
Normandy,  assessed  in  the  years  1196  and  1197  for  campaigns 
taking  place  respectively  in  1195  and  1196.  The  carucage 
of  5^.  in  1 198  is  said  by  Stubbs  to  redress  the  balance  of  tax- 
ation between  tenants  in  knight  service  and  tenants  in 
socage,'^  The  Oxford  debate  of  1198  has  already  been  referred 
to.  The  question  of  liability  to  foreign  service  on  the  part  of 
the  Bishops  of  Lincoln  and  Salisbury  was  raised,  but  there  was 
in  the  resistance  of  Hugh  of  Lincoln  no  refusal  of  a  scutage 
demanded  by  the  king. 

The  question  may  be  asked,  how  far  the  crusade  of  Richard 
and  Philip  Augustus  affected  England  in  respect  to  knight  ten- 
ures and  knight  service.  The  chivalric  king  was  continually 
sapping  the  country  for  sums  of  money  to  support  his  military 
enterprises,  and  the  ransom  took  still  more.  In  1188  probably 
most  of  the  barons  and  a  large  number  of  the  knights  of  Eng- 
land put  themselves  under  obligations  by  vows  to  go  on  the  cru- 
sade.3  If  there  had  been  a  general  exodus  of  the  knighthood 
of  the  kingdom  it  would  certainly  have  had  a  great  effect  upon 
the  economic  condition  of  the  country.  But  it  does  not  appear 
that  a  large  number  of  Englishmen  took  part  in  this  great  expe- 
dition. The  king  obtained  from  the  Pope  permission  to  release 
whomsoever  he  chose  from  their  vows,  and  this  he  employed  as 
an  expedient  for  getting  money. ■♦  A  number  of  prominent  men 
in  England,  such  as  Ranulf  Glanvil,  Roger  Glanvil,  Archbishop 
Baldwin,  the  Bishop  of  Norwich,  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  the 
Archdeacon  of  Colchester  and  others,  s  went  with  the  king,  in 
some  cases  because  they  could  not  pay  for  a  release.  But  the 
most  of  the  barons  paid  for  licenses  to  stay  at  home.  The  cru- 
sading fleet  which  accompanied  Richard  is  said  to  have  consisted 

'  Similiter  factum  est  pfer  omnes  terras  regis  transmarinas."     (Hov.,  Ill,  225.) 

="  Stubbs,  Pref.  Rog.  Hov.,  IV,  92,  3  Ben.  Pet.,  I,  336. 

*  Rex  obtinuit  ab  eo  (Pope)  litteras  patentes  ut  quoscunque  ipse  vellet  dimittere 
ad  terras  suas  custodiendas,  essent  quieti  a  captione  crucis,  et  ab  itinere  Jerusalomito 
unde  ipse  sibi  inaestimabilem  acquisivit  pecuniam."     (IIov.,  Ill,  17.) 

SHov.,  Ill,  Preface,  28;    Mem.  Ric.  I,  QS- 


SCUT  AGE  OF  RICHARD  AND  JOHN  73 

of  37  capacious  vessels,'  not  a  large  number  certainly  compared 
with  the  fleets  ordinarily  used  to  convey  armies  to  the  conti- 
nent. Of  the  men  who  thus  embarked,  we  may  well  believe 
from  the  encouragement  given  to  enlistments,  and  the  subse- 
quent conduct  of  many  crusaders,  that  a  considerable  part  of 
Richard's  following  were  of  the  more  doubtful  classes  of 
society.^  In  the  conduct  of  the  crusade  the  leaders  that  are 
noticed  by  English  writers  are  mostly  not  men  of  England. 
Over  the  English  fleet  were  placed  in  command  the  Archbishoj) 
of  Auxerre,  the  Bishop  of  Bayeux,  Richard  of  Camville,  Wil- 
liam de  Forz  de  Wheran,  and  Robert  of  Sablul,  only  two  of 
whom  were  men  of  England.  In  the  matter  of  tenures,  it  is  not 
possible  to  discern  that  the  third  crusade,  which  was  the  first  in 
which  England  had  a  direct  interest,  made  any  difference.  The 
general  tendency  of  the  times,  the  gradual  assimilation  of  lands 
held  by  military  tenures  to  those  held  by  rents,  was  already 
under  way  before  the  time  of  the  crusade,  and  was  not  particu- 
larly affected  by  it.  If  there  had  been  any  considerable  depar- 
ture of  knights  from  the  country  they  would  have  been  likely  to 
try  to  dispose  of  their  lands,  and  the  putting  of  many  knights' 
fees  at  one  time  on  the  market  would  have  caused  a  fall  in  the 
price  of  such  lands.  The  tendency  was  just  the  opposite,  how- 
ever. In  spite  of  the  considerable  outpourings  of  money  for 
the  crusade  and  the  ransom,  there  is  perceptible  a  general  rise 
in  value  of  land  as  well  as  prices.  Knights'  fees  were  being 
disposed  of,  generally  at  a  rental  superimposed  on  the  military 
obligations.  The  fad  of  holding  tournaments,  common  at  that 
time,  was  an  outgrowth  of  the  crusading  spirit.  The  increase  in 
the  wages  paid  a  knight  at  arms  may  have  been  partly  encouraged 
by  the  crusades.  Yet  the  general  upward  tendency  of  prices 
bespeak  an  economical  development  quite  independent  of  any 
crusade. 3 

There  were  but  three  scutagcs  under  Richard,  besides  that 

'R.  Diceto. 

•"Quidam  hominum  qui  in  comitatu  Robert!  de  Sablul  et   Kicardi   de   Camvilla 
venerant,  malefactores  erant  et  perversi."     (Hov.,  Ill,  35.) 

3  Compare  Thompson,  Development  of  the  French  Monarchy,  p.  So. 


74  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

for  the  ransom.  Under  his  successor  there  were  eleven  assessed. 
John  was  crowned  in  May  1199,  and  in  the  Pipe  Roll  for  the 
first  year  is  recorded  a  scutage  entitled  '' de  primo  Scutagio  post 
Coronatio7ie7n  Regis." ^  There  was  no  regular  military  expedition 
for  which  a  scutage  might  properly  be  levied,  but  in  June  John 
went  to  Normandy,  concluding  a  truce  with  the  King  of  France.' 
There  were  fines  paid  by  some  who  failed  to  accompany  the 
King  in  this  passage  to  Normandy. 3  It  was  unusual  for  scutages 
to  be  recorded  in  the  same  year  that  they  were  assessed,  and  the 
object  of  the  levy  was  generally  made  more  definite. 

This  scutage  of  2m.  was  raised  upon  an  assessment  of  old 
enfeofments  only,  and  in  the  case  of  churchmen  for  the  knights 
''qtios  recog7ioscit.''  The  Archbishop  of  York  paid  6,0m.,  the  old 
servitium  debitum  being  20  knights ;  the  Bishop  of  Durham  paid 
207n.  for  the  10  knights  of  his  servitmm  debitum  instead  of  for 
the  70  knights  which  he  had  enfeoffed ;  William  de  Mobray 
rendered  account  for  1^6  m.  for  88  knights,  which  is  about  the 
same  as  the  old  enfeofment  rendered  by  Roger  de  Mobray  in 
1 168,  who  paid  for  883^  knights  besides  over  ii  knights  new 
enfeofment. •♦  So  that  new  enfeofments  were  not  paid  by  the 
barons. 

There  were  six  scutages  of  Normandy  levied  in  successive 
years  : 


"or 

a  campaign 

in  1201, 

enrolled 

1202  @  2   7?l. 

'• 

" 

"  1202, 

" 

1203  @  2  m. 

« 

" 

"  1203, 
"  1204, 
"  1205, 

: 

1204  @  2  t/i. 

1205  @  2;^;;/. 5 

1206  @.    2   W. 

"  "  "   1206,         "         1207  @,  20s. 

These  exactions  were  more  frequent  than  ever  before,  but 
the  rate  2  w.  was  the  same  as  in  11 59  and  1161,  although  a 
chronicler  states  it  had  never  been  over  20  .y.  before.^ 

'  Red  Book,  lo.  =•  Hoved.,  IV,  93. 

i"  De  hiis  qui  finem  fecerunt  pro  Passagio  suo."     (Madox,  I,  638.) 

♦Madox,  I,  263;  R.  14,  Hen.  II,  p.  87. 

SThe  Red  Book  gives  the  rate  2  tn.     (See  Doc.  Scot.,  I,  64.) 

*  Rad.  Coggeshale,  Sel,  Char.,  272. 


SCUT  AGE  OF  RICHARD  AND  JOHN  75 

The  particular  grievance  on  account  of  these  levies  was  not 
the  high  rate  or  the  frequency  of  the  demand,  so  much  as  it  was 
the  specious  occasions  for  raising  them.  Under  Henry  II  and 
Richard  scutages  had  been  raised  always  with  reference  to  bojia- 
fide  military  expeditions,  and  generally  campaigns  of  consider- 
able import,  for  which  a  general  summons  had  been  issued,  and 
as  large  a  force  as  possible  actually  marshalled.  The  summonses 
and  campaigns  of  John  were  often  mere  pretexts  for  raising 
money,  and  the  military  operations  were  trifling,  if  carried  out 
at  all.  In  1201  the  king  assembled  an  army  at  Portsmouth  to 
cross  into  Normandy.  But  the  King  of  France,  on  hearing  of 
this,  gave  up  the  sieges  he  had  undertaken.  John  sent  home 
again  most  of  the  army,  first  taking  from  each  man  the  money 
he  had  brought  for  his  personal  expenses.'  In  1202  and  1203, 
having  reached  Normandy  with  an  army,  the  king  remained 
engaged  in  idle  pleasures,  indisposed  to  fight.  The  barons  left 
him  in  disgust.  This  act  on  their  part  the  king  considered  a 
desertion,  and  made  it  the  pretext  for  an  extortion  of  one-seventh 
upon  the  mobilia  of  the  barons.''  In  1 205  a  large  army  was  col- 
lected at  Portsmouth  to  cross  into  Normandy.  A  large  fleet 
and  many  sailors  were  ready  to  convey  the  forces,  but  it  was 
decided  in  a  council  that  only  a  small  force  should  cross  over. 
With  the  smaller  following,  however,  only  a  feigned  start  for 
France  was  made,  the  vessels  being  made  to  change  their  course 
and  return  to  Warham.  The  king  offered  a  pretext  that  the 
barons  and  knights  refused  to  follow  him,  although  one  writer 
says  that   never  were  soldiers  more  eager  for  war. 3 

The  expedition  to  Wales  in  121 1  was  equally  a  farce,  for  the 
King,  hearing  that  the  barons  were  planning  an  insurrection, 
dismissed  his  army  and  betook  himself  to  Nottingham  castle.* 
In  the  light  of  these  abuses  it  is  easy  to  understand  the  article 
in  the  charter  of  1 2 1 7,  that  "  Scutage  shall  be  taken  just  as  it  used 
to  be  in  the  time  of   Henry  our  grandfather." 

It   is    stated    that  in  the  year    1204,  an  assembly  at    Oxford 

■Hov.,  IV,  160-163.  3. Mat.  Par.,  II,  290  ;  R.  Cog.,  153,  154. 

'  Mat.  Par.,  II,  282.  ••  Rad.  Cog.,  164  . 


76  THE  SCUTAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

granted  a  scutage  of  2^  ;;/.  as  a  special  aid.  This  is  notable 
as  being  the  first  instance  that  such  a  tax  was  said  to  be  granted 
to  the  King  by  the  barons.  In  connection  therewith  was  a 
donum.^     The  remaining  scutages  of  the  reign  were  : 

For  an  expedition  to  Ireland,     1210,  enrolled  121 1  @  2m. 

"      "  "            "  Wales,      121 1,         "  1212  @  zm. 

"  "            "  Scotland,  121 1,         "  1212  @  20s. 

"      "  "             "  Poictou,    1 21 4,         "  1215  @  3;«.» 

It  is  quite  evident  that  the  knights'  fees  were  assessed  in  the 
same  manner  as  under  Richard,  that  is,  upon  old  enfeofments 
according  to  the  returns  made  under  Henry  II. 3  Thus,  in  the 
Pipe  Roll  of  the  13th  year  of  John,  for  Yorkshire,  Robert  de 
Turnham  owes  31  /.  10  s.  for  31^  fees  of  William  Fossard's  fee. 
In  1 1 68  William  Fossard  rendered  21  /.  for  31  5^  knights. ^  Wil- 
liam de  Mobray  was  discharged  for  883<(  fees;  in  1168  Roger 
de  Mobray  accounted  for  88  5^  knights  old  enfeofment;^ 
Richard  de  Perci  for  15  fees  of  one-half  William  de  Perci's 
honor,  and  William  Briwere  15  fees  of  the  same  honor;  in  1168 
William  de  Perci  accounts  for  30  knights;^  Geoffrey  Lutrel  for 
y}4  fees  of  one-half  Wm.  Painel's  barony;  in  1168  William 
Painel  accounted  for  15  knights  old  enfeofment;^  Roger  de 
Lacy  for  43^  fees;  in  1168  Henry  de  Lacy  renders  account 
for  29/.  3.y.  4  d.'' 

The  clergy  paid  for  the  knights  "  guos  recogfioscit,"  which  was 
the  same  as  the  old  servititim  debitum.  The  Prior  of  Coventry 
repeatedly  renders  account  for  20  m.  on  10  fees,  the  same  as 
under  Henry  11.^  Likewise  the  Abbot  of  St.  Albans  for  6  fees. 
In  the  case  of  custodies  the  rating  of  1166,  both  for  old  and 
new  enfeofments,  was  taken;  e.g.,  Roger,  constable  of  Chester, 

' "  Convenerunt  ad   Oxoniam   rex  et  magnes  Angliae;    ubi  concessa  sunt  regi 

auxilia  militaria,  de  quolibet  scuto  scilicet  duae  marcae  et  dimidia.  Nee  etiam 
episcopi  et  abbates  sive  ecclesiastlcae  personae  sine  promissione  recesserunt."  (Mat. 
Par.,  484  ;  Madox,  I,  605.) 

'  Red  Book  of  Exch.,  12.  ^  Ibid.,  88. 

3  Doc.  Scot.,  I,  84.  T  Ibid.,  and  Doc.  Scot.,  I,  84. 

4R.  14,  11.  II,  87.  8 Madox,  1,639. 

SR.  14,  H.  11,87. 


SCUT  AGE  OF  RICHARD  AND  JOHN  77 

owes  47/.  55.  for  ^^7%  knights'  fees  of  the  fee  of  Richard 
Muntfichet,  whose  heir  he  has  in  ward;  and  145.  of  half  a  fee 
and  \-  of  a  new  enfeofment ;'  in  1168  William  de  Muntfichet 
accounted  for  the  same  number  of  knights,  31  /.  10^.  old  enfeof- 
ment,  and  95.  A^d.  new.^ 

The  fact  that  the  barons  did  not  have  to  answer  to  the  king 
for  their  full  enfeofments  did  not  preclude  them  from  receiving 
the  full  emoluments  of  all  the  fees  they  might  create.  An 
interesting  case,  bringing  up  this  question,  was  tried  in  the  king's 
court  in  1 196.  The  abbot  of  St.  Edmunds'  servitium  debitum  was 
40  knights,  but  he  had  as  many  as  50  upon  his  estate. 3  He 
claimed  to  have  the  scutages,  aids  and  the  like,  of  50  knights, 
while  his  tenants  claimed  that  the  10  extra  knights  should  not 
render  service  to  the  abbot,  but  support  the  40  knights,  and  that 
such  had  been  the  custom.  The  tenants  probably  had  this  much 
of  right  on  their  side  that  in  rendering  active  service  the  forty 
knights  would  not  always  be  the  same,  and  groups  of  ten  in 
rotation  would  be  relieved.  After  the  abbot  had  been  put  to 
considerable  annoyance,  as  it  not  infrequently  happened  that 
undertenants  had  some  success  in  resisting  the  demands  of  their 
lords,  it  was  decided  by  the  Justiciar  that  "each  knight  should 
answer  individually  for  his  own  tenement."'*  This  ended  any 
claim  of  collective  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  tenants. 

A  question  closely  allied  to  the  liability  of  scutage  is  that  of 
the  obligation  to  foreign  service,  which  now  became  a  mooted 
one.  There  is  nothing  inherent  in  the  English  constitution  dur- 
ing the  feudal  period  which  precludes  the  obligation  of  foreign 
military  service  as  well  as  domestic  service.  The  issue  was  not 
thought  of  under  the  Norman  kings.  William  II  even  gathered 
together  the  fyrd  at  Hastings  to  take  across  the  sea.  Though 
the  plan  was  not  actually  carried  out,  the  obligation  to  go  was 
not  questioned.  Likewise  in  ii 77  Henry  II  was  prepared  to 
take   his   English    baronage    across  to   Normandy,  though    the 

'  Pipe  Roll,  13 ;  Doc.  Scot.,  I,  85.  =  R.  14.  H.  II,  38. 

3 There  were  52^  knights  accounted  for  in  1168.     (R.  14,  H.  II,  22.) 

*Chron.  Jocelin  de  Brakelonda,  48. 


78  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

necessity  for  it  was  averted.'  The  idea  that  they  were  not  obliged 
to  serve  abroad  took  hold  of  the  barons  slowly  under  the  new 
conditions.  Under  Henry  II  and  Richard  the  custom  of  levying 
scutages  after  such  campaigns  made  it  possible  for  many  of  the 
barons  to  remain  at  home  at  such  times,  and  so  perhaps  less 
inclined  to  serve  abroad.  In  1 197  the  Bishops  of  Lincoln  and 
Salisbury  resisted  a  demand  for  foreign  service  upon  the  ground 
of  some  prescriptive  rights  of  their  respective  churches.*  In  1 20 1 
the  barons  gathered  at  Leicester  in  common  council  decided  that 
they  would  not  follow  him  abroad  unless  he  rendered  them  their 
rights. 3  There  does  not  appear  any  basis  of  law  for  this  refusal ; 
nor  is  it  likel)-  that  the  barons  thought  there  was,  except  that  it 
was  only  fair  that  the  king  should  perform  his  part  if  they  were 
to  perform  theirs.  In  1205,  when  a  large  assembly  had  been 
brought  together,  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  William 
Marshall,  who  had  just  come  home  from  abroad,  tried  to  dis- 
suade the  king  from  his  undertaking,  showing  that  the  king  of 
France  was  better  prepared  than  he,  that  it  would  be  unsafe  for 
him  personally,  and  impolitic  in  behalf  of  the  state.  The  barons 
in  council  took  the  question  up,  and  the  king  felt  himself  obliged 
to  yield  to  their  objections  and  not  send  the  whole  army  to 
France. ■•  In  12 14  was  the  first  time  that  a  question  of  law  was 
raised  between  king  and  barons  upon  the  obligation  of  foreign 
service.  Upon  the  levy  of  scutage  for  the  expedition  to  Poictou 
some  of  the  northern  barons,  who  would  naturally  have  had  less 
interest  than  others  in  continental  affairs,  claimed  that  for  lands 
held  in  England  they  were  not  obliged  to  serve  outside  the 
realm.  It  is  noteworthy  that  they  placed  the  obligation  to 
scutage  upon   the   same   footing.s     The   barons   had    the   better 

'Stubbs,  C.  H.,  I,  524.  »  Round,  Feud.  Eng.,  528. 

3"  Mandaverunt  regi  quod  non  transfretarent  cum  illo,  nisi  ille  reddiderit  eis  jura 
sua.     Rex  autem  ....  petebat  ab  eis  castella  sua."     (Hov.,  IV,  161.) 

4R.  Cog.,  153- 

s "  Dantibus  enim  illud  (scutage)  plurimis,  contradixerunt  ex  aquilonibus  non- 
nulli,  illi  videlicet  qui  anno  praeterito  regem  ne  in  Pictaviam  transiret  impedierunt ; 
dicentes  se  propter  terras  quas  in  Anglia  tenent  non  debere  regem  extra  regnum  sequi, 
nee  ipsum  euntem  scutagiojuvare.     E  contrario,  rege  id  tanquam  debitum  exigente, 


SCUT  AGE  OF  RICHARD  AND  JOHN  79 

reason,  but  the  king  had  the  precedents  on  his  side.'  None  of 
these  disagreements  between  king  and  nobles  received  a  satis- 
factory solution  at  the  time.  Every  instance  of  opposition, 
however,  was  an  encouragement  to  another.  The  fact  of  the 
loss  of  Normandy  to  the  English  crown  in  1204  could  make  no 
difference  as  to  the  legal  situation,  for  the  king  did  not  acknowl- 
edge that  Normandy  was  not  his  rightful  possession  as  much 
as  ever.  It  made  a  great  difference,  however,  in  the  degree  of 
interest  in  Normandy  felt  by  the  English  baronage,  and  the  con- 
nection between  families  on  either  side  of  the  Channel. 

Although  it  had  become  quite  customary  with  the  Anjevin 
kings  to  remit  military  obligations  by  levies  of  scutage,  and  to 
carry  on  their  military  operations  to  a  greater  or  less  extent 
by  the  employment  of  Flandrine,  Brabantine,  Welsh,  and  other 
mercenaries,  and  although  landholding  was  visibly  coming  to  be 
less  and  less  on  a  soldierly  basis,  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  sup- 
pose that  it  was  a  policy  of  these  kings  to  break  down  the  feudal 
military  system,  and  that  they  purposely  set  about  to  establish 
some  other  system.  The  documents  relating  to  land  grants  are 
fairly  copious  under  John,  and  there  are  numberless  instances 
like  the  following : 

"Sciatisquod  dedimus  dilecto  et  fideli  nostro  Rob.  de  Veteri  Ponti  West- 
miland  ad  se  sustentandum  in  servicio  nostro."  (1205.)^ 

"  Praecipimus  ....  quod  facias  habere  Thorn,  de  Erdington  1 5  libra- 
tasterrae  extensas  in  manerio  in  W.  cum  pertinentiis  ....  quas  ei  dedimus 
ad  sustentandum  se  in  servicio  nostro."  (i205.)3 

"  Terram  ....  quam  dominus  Rex  ei  concessit  ad  se  sustentandum  in 
servicio  suo  quamdiu  ei  placuit."  (i2i6.)-' 

It  did  not  necessarily  follow  that  one  who  was  a  knight  in 
England  held  land  for  which  he  owed  service. s    Throughout  the 

eo  quod  in  diebus  patris  sui  et  patris  sic  fieret ;  res  ulterius  processisset,  nisi  legati 
praesentia  obstituisset."  (Wal.  Cov.,  II,  217.) 

'  Stubbs,  Pref.  VV.  Cov.,  II.  3  Rot.  Claus.,  I,  19. 

=  Rot.  Claus.,  1,27.  *  Ibid.,  2^2. 

5  See  Writ  for  the  levying  of  a  force  to  defend  the  kingdom  :  "  Et  si  quis  miles  vel 

serviens  vel  alius  terram  tenens  inventus  erit,  tjui,  etc Si  qui  vero  milites,  servi- 

entes,  vel  alii  ijui  terram  non  habcnt,  invent!  fuerint,  etc."     (Sel.  Char.,  281.) 


8o  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

reign  of  John  there  was  a  continual  infeuclation  of  lands  on  terms 
of  knight  service,  particularly  in  Ireland,'  and  to  a  considerable 
extent  in  England.  The  terms  of  a  grant  to  a  person  were 
often  expressed  "to  sustain  himself  in  our  service,"  or  "as  long 
as  it  was  pleasing  to  him  to  sustain  himself  in  the  king's  service."^ 
Those  who  were  in  the  king's  service  were  allowed  special  privi- 
leges, particularly  respite  for  their  dues  at  the  Exchequer,  e.  g.: 

"  Mandamus  vobis  quod  ponatis  in  respectum  demandam  quam  facis 
Henr'  fil'  Com'  de  debito  quod  nobis  debet  quamdiu  idem  Henricus  fuerit  in 
hoc  exercitu  nostro  modo  summonito  cum  equis  et  armis  par  praeceptum 
nostrum."  (1205.) ^ 

The  king  places  the  property  of  one  who  is  in  service  under 
the  special  care  of  his  officer,  e.  g.: 

"  Rex  Justiciario  Hiberniae  ....  ducimus  eum  (Hugh  de  Lacy)  cum 
corpore  nostro  in  servicium  nostrum  unde  vobis  mandamus  quod  sicut  nos 
diligitis  terram  suam  et  omnia  sua  custodiatis  mantineatis  et  defendatis  sicut 
nostra  dominica,"  etc* 

The  king  paid  a  man  a  yearly  income  for  his  homage  and 
service,  e.  g.  : 

"  Sciatis  quod  dedimus  Willelmo  de  Wika  pro  homagio  et  servicio  suo 
lom.  percipiendas  annuatim."5 

Various  liveries  were  paid  to  secure  men  for  the  king's  service, 
e.  g. : 

"  Rex    Gef    fil'    Pet mandamus   vobis    quod    faciatis    habere    de 

Wigom'  20m.  ad  preparandum  se  ad  veniendum  in  servicium  nostrum."* 

In  some  instances  other  obligations  of  a  tenure  were  removed, 
provided  the  tenant  did  knight  service.     Thus  : 

"  Johannis  ....  Sciatis  nos  concessisse  et  hac  presenti  carta  confirmasse 
quod  Wills  de  Moriston  et  heredes  sui  post  eum  teneantde  nobis  et  heredibus 
nostris  in  perpetuum  totum  tenementum  suum  quod  de  nobis  et  de  ances- 
soribus    nostris  tenuit  in  hundred  de  Midelton  p'   50  sol.  p'  annum  et  qui- 

»Rot.  Chartarum,  I,  19,  30,  etc. 

'"Terram  ....  quam  dominus  Rex  ei  dedit  quamdiu  fuit  in  servicio  suo." 
(Rot.  Lit.  Claus.,  1,  280.) 

3  Rot.  Lit.  Claus.,  I,  30.  ^Idid.,  37. 

*Rot.  Lit.  Claus.,  I,  37.  ^3id.,  19. 


SCUT  AGE  OF  RICHARD  AND  JOHN  8 1 

busdam  aliis  serviciis  in  gavelcunde,  faciendo  in  amore  nobis  et  heredibus 
nostris  servicium  feudi  unius  niilitis  p'  omni  servicio,"  etc' 

As  the  instances  cited  are  not  taken  from  the  years  of  the 
rebellion  against  John,  they  may  be  taken  to  fairly  represent  the 
condition  of  the  military  service  of  the  time. 

At  the  time  of  Henry  II  a  scutage  of  2  m.  might  be  consid- 
ered a  fair  equivalent  for  the  service  of  a  knight  for  40  days. 
Until  about  the  time  of  John  the  payment  of  a  scutage,  when 
permitted,  was  considered  a  complete  acquittal  of  the  obligation 
of  serving  in  the  army  and  leading  one's  contingent  of  followers. 
At  the  beginning  of  the  13th  century,  however,  the  wages  of  a 
knight  in  the  field  had  risen  far  beyond  what  the  highest  rate  of 
scutage  could  pay  for.  In  1198  the  Abbot  of  St.  Edmunds  hired 
knights  at  the  rate  of  3.y.  a  day.^  Many  knights  of  Flanders  were 
given  by  John  3  /«.  or  5  m.  de  dono  for  a  term  of  service. 3  Per- 
haps the  average  cost  of  a  knight  is  found  in  the  writ  of  1205, 
which  directs  nine  knights  to  find  a  tenth  at  a  livery  of  2s.  a 
day.*  A  select  body  of  knights  is  referred  to  as  solidati  milites.^ 
The  custom  of  levying  scutage  had  not  come  to  such  a  pass  that 
a  tenant  could  claim  as  a  right  the  fulfillment  of  his  military 
obligations  by  scutage  —  except  as  such  a  right  had  been  specif- 
ically granted,  particularly  in  the  charters  of  undertenants.  The 
feudal  law  was  still  in  force  that  one  who  failed  to  obey  his  sum- 
mons was  guilty  of  a  default  and  might  suffer  forfeiture  or  pay  a 
fine.  The  king,  therefore,  after  an  expedition,  had  a  right  to 
demand  fines  of  those  who  had  not  attended,  aside  from  scutage. 
In  the  8th  year  of  Richard  the  Prior  of  Coventry  paid  a  fine  of  \ 
25/.  "for  not  crossing  the  sea  and  for  having  the  scutage  of  25 
knights."^  At  most  of  the  levies  of  scutage  there  are  accounts 
of  fines  as  well,  and  in  the  rolls  there  are  titles  de  finibtis  et  scuta- 
giis  militum.  In  1 199,  soon  after  his  coronation,  John  passed  over 
into    Normandy. 7     No   scutage  was  raised  in  reference  to  this 

'Rot.  Char.,  1199,  p.  31.  s  R.  Cog.,  155. 

•Jocelin  (Cam.  See),  63.  «  Madox,  I,  638. 

3  Misae  Roll,  14  y.  7  Hov.,  IV,  y2. 
<SeI.  Char.,  281. 


82  THE  SCUTAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

excursion,'  but  there  were  fines  pro  passagio  paid  by  some  who 
did  not  follow  him.  Ralph  Musard  rendered  \o  m.  pro  passagio 
suo.^  Such  a  fine  had  no  connection  with  the  number  of  knights' 
;  fees.  In  1168  Hascuil  Musard  paid  for  12  knights. 3  Of  knights' 
fines  of  the  second  scutage  Walter  fitz  Gilbert  accounts  for  lom. 
for  3  knights'  fees.-*  It  has  been  shown  that  the  barons  in  ren- 
dering their  scutage  paid  for  old  enfeofments  only.  So  that  in 
collecting  from  their  undertenants  the  barons  would  have  as 
profit  the  returns  from  new  enfeofments,  if  there  were  any.  But 
it  was  likely  they  had  to  pay  fine  for  collecting  the  scutage  from 
their  men,  in  case  they  had  not  merited  it  by  actual  service.  The 
Prior  of  Coventry,  who  regularly  paid  scutage  for  10  knights, 
paid  a  fine  of  25/.  for  not  having  crossed  the  sea  and  for  having 
the  scutage  of  25  knights  owing  him.  Ralph,  son  of  Stephen, 
rendered  account  of  4,0m.  "for  passage  and  for  having  his  scu- 
tage." s  The  idea  was  that  a  lord  should  have  the  scutage  of  his 
tenants  to  support  him  in  war,  but  that  he  could  not  have  that 
scutage  merely  for  his  pecuniary  gain.  When  the  baron  had 
made  his  settlement  with  the  king,  he  was  given  permission  to 
levy  the  scutage  of  his  tenants,  often  by  a  writ  to  the  sheriff  like 
the  following:  "  King  to  the  Sheriff  of  York. — We  direct  you 
that  you  permit  the  scutage  of  William  de  Albenv  for  the  knights' 
fees  which  he  holds  of  us  ifi  capite  in  your  bailiwick  to  be  col- 
lected by  the  hands  of  his  bailiffs,  since  he  will  answer  to  us 
therefor,  and  do  you  let  us  know  the  amount  of  the  scutage."^ 
Sometimes  the  scutage  of  undertenants  was  collected  by  the 
king's  officers.  In  the  16th  year  of  John  are  numerous  writs 
directing  sheriffs  to  collect  and  account  for  the  scutage  due  from 
persons  specified,  or  to  permit  such  scutage  to  be  collected  by 
the  hands  of  the  persons  entitled  thereto. ^ 

'R.  I,  Jn. ;  Madox,  1,638. 

"  Unless  the  scutage  of  that  year  designated   "  first  after  the  coronation  "  was 
because  the  passage  to  Normandy. 
3R.  14,  H.  II,  99. 

*  Pipe  R.,  3  ;  John  Northumberland,  Doc.  Scot.,  I,  53. 
s  Madox,  I,  538.  «  Close  Roll,  I,  43. 

'Scutage  Rolls;  see  Bird,  Genealogist,  i884. 


SCUTAGE  OF  RICHARD  AND  JOHN  83 

Thus  the  policy  in  which  the  administration  of  Henry  II  had 
seemed  to  fail  was  in  fact  carried  out.  It  had  been  found 
impracticable  to  charge  the  barons  according  to  their  entire 
number  of  enfeofments,  and  so  remove  at  once  the  feudal  charac- 
ter of  the  levy.  But  the  same  results  were  practically  brought 
about  in  another  way.  If  the  crown,  being  well  informed  of  the 
resources  of  a  baron,  could  exact  from  him  in  connection  with 
the  scutage  what  was  called  a  fine,  or  a  payment  iyi  camera, 
according  to  his  ability  to  pay,  the  baron  could  no  longer  be  the 
gainer  by  the  operation  of  the  levy. 

In  the  years  12 10-12  inquisitions  were  made  throughout 
the  kingdom  concerning  the  services  of  knights  and  others  hold- 
ing in  capite.  The  method  was  quite  different  from  that 
employed  in  1166.  Then  the  returns  were  made  by  the  barons 
according  to  the  number  of  fees  in  their  baronies ;  now  the 
returns  are  made  by  the  sheriffs  according  to  the  holdings  in 
their  respective  counties.  The  reports  for  different  counties 
vary.  Some  name  all  the  tenants  of  a  barony  or  tell  how  many 
fiefs  they  possess,  as  in  the  case  of  the  archbishoprick  of  Canter- 
bury and  the  bishoprick  of  Salisbury  ;  while  most  indicate  the 
services  owing  the  king.'  The  object  of  the  inquisitions  was  not 
to  introduce  any  new  method  in  the  assessment  of  scutage,  for 
in  the  succeeding  years  the  payments  of  the  barons  will  be  found 
to  be  made  according  to  the  cartae  of  1166.  For  example,  the 
Earl  of  Warwick  is  reported  for  Warwickshire  with  98  knights  ;^ 
in  the  14th  year  of  Henry  III  the  Earl  paid  for  102^  fiefs,  the 
same  as  in  11 68. 3  The  main  purpose,  therefore,  was  not  to 
ascertain  the  resources  of  the  barons,  but  to  determine  the  ten- 
ants, and  particularly  the  small  tenants,  for  whom  the  sheriffs 
were  to  answer.  So  that  lists  are  given  of  tenants  in  serjeantry 
and  of  those  holding  "lands  without  service  "'*  and  of  those 
holding  lands  "whose  services  are  not  known." ^ 

From   the   data  that  have  been   brought  out  relating  to  the 

'  Red  Book,  469  et  seq.  *  Red  Book,  530. 

'Red  Book,  549.  ^ Ibid.,  534. 

3Madox,  I,  640. 


84  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

Scutage  under  Richard  and  John  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  a  levy 
of  scutage  was  then  of  no  greater  relative  importance  than  under 
Henry  II.  This  fact  has  not  been  clearly  understood.'  Under 
John  the  levies  were  more  frequent  than  formerly,  and  the  aver- 
age rate  was  higher,  but  the  basis  of  assessment  was  the  Curiae 
of  1 1 66.  The  levies  were  not  executed  with  any  such  rigor  as 
those  of  1 1 68  and  1172,  for  the  assessments  were  upon  old 
enfeofments  only.  The  documents  show  also  a  great  number  of 
acquittals  for  scutage.  The  remittances  of  the  ransom  have  been 
referred  to  ;  for  the  scutage  of  Scotland  of  1 2 1 2  it  seems  as  if  the 
most  of  the  greater  tenants  in  Yorkshire,  Essex  and  Hertford- 
shire, Northumberland  were  discharged  by  writs. =  So  that  the 
actual  amounts  attained  even  with  the  higher  rate  would  not  be 
materially  greater  than  under  Henry  II. 

In  Magna  Charta  it  is  laid  down  that  no  scutage  or  aid  should 
be  levied  unless  by  the  common  council  of  the  realm,  except  for 
the  three  regular  aids. 3  There  has  been  but  one  instance  thus 
far  where  a  scutage  was  plainly  granted  by  the  barons.  In  the 
future  this  rule  was  at  times  to  be  adhered  to,  at  other  times  not, 
but  the  law  once  laid  down  could  not  fail  to  have  a  strong  influ- 
ence. Unless  the  king  was  himself  strong  and  had  a  good  cause, 
the  consent  of  the  barons  must  be  invoked.  It  was  also  pro- 
vided that  no  one  should  be  distrained  to  do  more  service  from 
a  knight's  fee  or  other  free  tenement  than  was  due  from  it.'*  At 
times  a  service  of  80  days  in  a  year  had  been  asked  for  under 
Henry  II  and  John,  and  two  scutages  were  imposed  in  one  year.s 
This  did  not  happen  more  than  once  again.  In  the  Charter  of 
Henry  HI  of  12 17  it  was  understood  that  scutages  were  to  be 
levied  only  for  bo7ia-fide  expeditions.^  In  reference  to  the  44th 
article  of  the  charter  of  12 17  Stubbs  says:  "The  exact  force  of 
the  clause  is,  however,  uncertain;  if,  as  may  be  thought,  it  was 

'  "  Among  the  manifold  sources  of  revenue  under  the  Crown,  undeniably  the  most 
important  for  the  future  of  the  Exchequer  and  the  Constitution  was  the  Scutagium:' 
(Gneist,  C.  H.,  I,  214.) 

*See  Doc.  Scot.,  I,  83  f/j^-i^.  I    s  R.  n,  Henry  II. 

3  Magna  Charta,  Sec.  12.  «  Sel.  Char.,  345,  §  44. 

<  Magna  Charta,  Sec.  16. 


SCUTAGE  OF  RICHARD  AND  JOHN  85 

to  restrict  the  amount  of  scutage,  it  was  a  concession  on  the  part 
of  the  crown  ;  if  it  means  that  scutages  should  be  taken  without 
asking  the  commune  concilmm,  it  was  a  retrograde  act."  The 
explanation  already  presented,  that  scutage  should  be  levied 
only  upon  adequate  occasions,  finds  this  much  plausibility  that 
in  this  sense  the  new  restriction  was  timely  and  was  subse- 
quently heeded,  whereas  in  either  of  the  other  senses  it  was  a 
sheer  dead  letter. 

The  period  of  John  presents  a  transition  in  the  development 
of  the  Scutage.  On  the  one  hand,  the  king  becomes  more 
dependent  on  his  barons  for  the  levies  of  scutage  imposed 
throughout  the  kingdom  ;  on  the  other  hand,  by  the  system  of 
fines  and  a  close  supervision  through  the  courts  and  Exchequer 
of  the  relations  existing  between  tenants  and  mesne  lords,  the 
individual  baron  becomes  totally  dependent  on  the  king's  per- 
mission to  have  the  scutage  of  his  men.  The  system  is  more 
complicated  than  at  first,  but  the  tendencies  to  a  greater  national 
unity  are  visible  in  this  institution  as  in  others. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE    SCUTAGE    UNDER    HENRY    III. 

The  Scutage,  having  become  firmly  implanted  in  the  constitu- 
tion, continued  under  Henry  HI  and  Edward.  But  it  was  little 
more  than  the  survival  of  an  institution  which  had  seen  its  best  use. 
It  began  with  the  idea  of  being  in  some  measure  a  pecuniary 
equivalent  for  the  service  which  was  the  part  of  military  fiefs.  It 
no  longer  can  pretend  to  be  anything  like  such  an  equivalent, 
but  the  institution,  being  so  well  established,  is  kept  up  under 
fiction  of  law,  while  the  real  compositions  for  feudal  service  are 
made  in  other  ways. 

The  first  period  of  Henrv  HI,  1216  to  1227,  was  that  of  the 
regency.      The  following  scutages  were  levied  : 

Occasion  Levy  Rate 

Army  of  1217  (?),  1 218  (called  •' the  first ")  2w. 

Siege  of  Biham,  1221  1211'         -         -         -         -  lo^. 

Army  of  Montgomery,  122 1 "  1223^  ...  2w. 

Siege  of  Bedford,       -   1224  1224*        ....  2w. 

The  scutage  of  1218  is  designated,  like  the  first  of  John,  as 
"first  after  the  first  coronation."  It  probably  was  in  reference 
to  an  army  raised  in  121 7  against  Louis  VII,  for  in  some  of  the 
writs  for  collecting  it  is  the  clause,  "scias  quod  A.  B.  venit  ad 
fidem  et  servicium.''^  The  siege  of  Biham  was  short,  being  from 
February  3  to  Februarys  ;  the  scutage  was  at  a  correspondingly 
low  rate ;  there  was  no  objection  raised  against  another  army  of 
the  same  year,  which  was  against  Wales.  In  this  period  of  the 
regency,  when  the  barons  in  council  had  virtual  control  of  the 
government,  each  one  of  these   levies  of  scutage  was  by  consent 

'  Close  R.,  I,  475  ;  Lane,  Lay  Sub.,  124.  '  Mat.  Par.,  Ill,  64. 

3  Mat.  Par.  says  the  scutage  was  granted  1221,  but  the  writs  were  issued  1223. 
(Close  R.,  I,  570.) 

*Pipe  R.,  8,  H.  Ill ;  Madox,  I,  669.  s  Close  R.,  I,  373. 

86 


THE  SCUTAGE  UNDER  HENRY  ///  87 

of  the  barons.  Thus,  in  the  scutage  of  12 18.  it  was  said  in  the 
writs  "which  was  assessed  by  common  council  of  our  realm."' 
In  1 22 1  news  of  a  rebellion  was  brought  while  the  king  and 
barons  were  sitting  at  Oxford,  and  there  the  army  of  Biham  was 
decided  upon;""  in  1221  the  grant  of  scutage  by  the  magnates 
was  said  to  be  at  the  time  the  army  was  dismissed  ;  in  1224  the 
form  of  expression  is  varied  somewhat :  after  the  capture  of 
Bedford  castle  the  barons  who  were  with  the  king  granted  for 
his  expenses  a  carucage,  and  the  king  in  turn  granted  the  mag- 
nates a  scutage,  after  which  the  army  was  dismissed. 3 
The  other  scutages  of  this  reign  were  as  follows  : 

Occasion 

Army  of  Wales,  1228  *  (Kerry), 
Expedition  to  Brittany,  1230,     - 
Expedition  of  Poitou,  1230, 
Expedition  against  the  Marshal,  1233, 
Aid  for  sister's  marriage, 
Expedition  to  Gascony,  1242, 
Aid  for  daughter's  marriage. 
Expedition  of  Gaunoc,  1245,      -         .         . 
Aid  for  knighting  son,     -         -         -         - 

It  may  now  be  stated  as  law,  both  in  theory  and  in  fact,  that 
a  levy  of  scutage  should  be  by  consent  of  the  council,  and  the 
fact  of  a  grant  is  generally  carefully  stated  in  the  official  docu- 
ments.^ Even  the  refusal  of  a  single  churchman  to  assent  to  a 
levy  seemed  to  have  been  some  ground  for  his  exemption.  In 
the  Pipe  Roll  for  the  fifth  year  it  is  stated  that  the  Bishop  of 
Winchester  was  charged  with  159  m.  for  the  first  scutage,  but  it 
was  testified  at  the  Exchequer  by  Hubert  de  Burgh,  William 
Briwere,  and  other  barons,  that  the  Bishop  of  Winchester  never 
consented  to  the  granting  of  the  said  scutage.     This  was  admitted 

'Close  R.,  I,  349.  •♦Mat.  Par.,  Ill,  158;  Ann.  Dunst. 

•Mat.  Par.,  Ill,  61.  SMadox,  I,  609. 

3  Mat.  Par.,  111,88. 

'"  Auxilium  regi  concessum  ad  primogenitam  filiam  suam  maritandam."  (Pipe 
Roll  39,  Hen.  III.)  "Fines  militum  ne  transfretarent  cum  rege  in  Wasconiam  praeter 
scutagia  sua  quae  regi  sponte  concesserunt."     (Pipe  Roll  30,  Hen.  III.) 


Levy 

Rate 

1229 

2m. 

1230 

im. 

I23I 

im. 

1233 

2  05. 

1235 

2m. 

1243  = 

yn. 

1245 

20s. 

1246 

yn. 

1252 

yn. 

88  THE  SCUTAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

to  be  true  by  William  Mareschalle,  the  rector,  and  by  the  coun- 
cil.    The  bishop  was  acquitted.' 

After  Henry's  return  from  France  in  1231,  Matthew  of  Paris 
says  that  in  a  council  at  Westminster  the  king  "exacted"  a 
scutage,  but  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  other  bishops 
resisted  the  demand  on  the  ground  that  the  clergy  were  not 
subject  to  the  decisions  of  the  laiety,  and  a  grant  had  not  been 
made  by  themselves.  After  a  little  delay  they  yielded.'  The 
expeditions  of  Brittany  and  Poitou  were  really  a  continuous  one, 
and  the  chronicle  of  Peterborough  says  that  two  scutages  were 
levied  in  one  year. 3 

There  is  sufficient  evidence  to  show  upon  what  enfeofments 
most  of  the  scutages  of  Henry  HI  were  made.  It  does  not 
appear  that  John  brought  about  any  new  method  of  assessment, 
for  the  old  baronies  are  accounted  for  on  the  same  basis  as  under 
Richard  and  John.  For  example :  In  the  scutage  of  Biham  the 
Earl  of  Clare  is  acquitted  by  writ  for  131  and  |,  \,  \,  \,  ^,  y^^, 
-^  fees,  and  9^  fees  of  the  countess.'*  This  is  the  same  num- 
ber accounted  for  as  old  enfeofment   in    1168.5 

In  the  scutage  of  Poitou,  William  de  Albineio  accounts  for 
33  knights,  the  same  number  as  one  of  the  same  name  accounted 
for  in  1168.^ 

In  the  scutage  of  Brittany  the  Earl  of  Warwick  renders 
account  for  I02|  fees;?  in  1168  the  Earl  of  Warwick  rendered 
account  for  I02i  fees  old  enfeofment,  and  2  new  enfeofment.^ 

In  n29  the  estate  of  Roger  Bigod  was  discharged  by  writ 
of  the  scutage  of  Kery  for  125^  fees  old  enfeofment,  and  37^ 
new  enfeofment.9  The  carta  of  Hugh  Bigod  for  1166  shows  125 
old  enfeofment  and  35  new  enfeofment.'"  Such  discrepancies  are 
not  infrequent,  owing  to  errors  in  the  transcriptions. 

•  Madox,  I,  290.  JChron.  Pet.,  il. 
"Mat.  Par.,  II,  200. 

♦R.  5,  H.  Ill  ;  Madox,  I,  666.  There  is  an  extra  %  in  the  writ,  which  is  undoubt- 
edly a  mistake. 

s  R.  14,  H.  11,20.  8  R.  14,  H.  II,  59. 

*Madox,  I,  640,  and  R.  14,  H.  II,  59.  »  R.  13,  H.  Ill;  Doc.  Scot.,  188. 

'Madox,  I,  640.  »°  Lib.  Nig.,  283. 


THE  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  JIEA'RY  III  89 

In  1I29  John  de  Bailliol  owes  125  /.  for  the  relief  of  30  fees 
which  his  father  Hugh  de  Bailliol  held  of  the  king  /;/  capites 
The  servituim  debittim  of  Bernard  Bailliol  was  30  knights,  and 
he  omitted  to  send  a  carta  in  1 166. 

In  the  scutage  of  Gannoc  one  Luvetot  rendered  account  for 
\  of  10  fees  of  Nigel  de  Luvetot.^  In  1168  a  certain  Nigel  de 
Luvetot  held  10  fees.3 

The  Prior  of  Coventry  continued  to  pay  for  10  knights,  and 
in  1 146  the  Abbot  of  Ramsay  was  acquitted  for  4  knights,  and 
the  Bishop  of  Ely  for  40,  the  numbers  of  their  servitia  dcbita 
respectively.* 

These  instances  go  to  show  that  the  general  methods  of 
assessment  were  not  changed.  The  lay  barons  paid  for  their 
old  enfeofments  and  the  clergy  for  their  knights  quos  recognoscit, 
and  where  the  tenement  was  in  the  king's  hand  he  received  what 
accrued  from  all  enfeofments.  In  other  words,  the  cartae  of 
1 1 66  were  still  relied  upon  at  the  Exchequer  to  determine  the 
returns  of  scutage.  The  old  baronies  were  breaking  up  and 
passing  into  the  hands  of  different  parties,  but  to  identify  the 
fiefs  the  old  names  were  often  retained.     Thus: 

In  1229,  of  those  discharged  by  writs  were  Hubert  de  Burg 
for  3ii  fees  of  the  honor  of  Peverell  of  London,  and  Earl  John 
of  Huntingdon  for  10  fees  of  the  same  honor. s  The  Honor 
contained  414^  and  \  knights  in  1168.^ 

The  name  of  the  old  holder  often  continues  to  identify  the 
land,  as  "the  land  which  was  Henry  de  Essex's. "^  It  seems 
desirable  to  prove  these  points  at  each  stage  of  the  subject, 
because  they  have  always  been  somewhat  uncertain  in  the  minds 
of  writers.^ 

'R.  13,  H  III;  Doc.  Scot.,  I,  189.  sDoc.  Scot.,  I,  188. 

»Madox,  I,  667.  «  R.  14,  H.  II,  40. 

3R.  14,  H.  II,  103.  7  Doc.  Scot.,  I,  189. 

<Madox,  I,  639,  667. 

^"We  must  speak  with  great  diffidence  about  this  matter  (/.  «•.,  the  way  in  which 
tenants-in-chief  discharged  their  obligations),  for  it  has  neverbeen  thoroughly  examined, 
and  we  are  by  no  means  sure,  that  all  scutages  were  collected  on  the  same  principle." 
(Polluckand  Maitland,  1,249.) 


90  THE  SCUTAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

While  it  was  as  a  rule  true  that  the  barons,  having  fulfilled  their 
obligations  to  the  king  in  one  of  several  ways,  could  in  turn 
demand  like  services  of  all  their  tenants,  which  services  might 
amount  to  more  than  they  owed  the  king,  there  was  at  least  one 
levy  which  was  an  exception  to  the  rule.  As  to  the  aid  for  the 
marriage  of  the  king's  sister,  IJ'35,  the  Annals  of  the  Dunstaple 
state  :  "  Pro  quibus  petitum  et  concessum  fuit  generale  scutagium 
duarum  marcarum  per  totam  Angliam,  non  solum  de  feodis  habitis 
in  capite  de  rege,  sed  etiam  de  aliis  cultis."'  That  is,  the  grant 
was  for  a  scutage  to  be  collected  according  to  the  entire  number 
of  knights'  fees,  whether  held  m  capite  or  otherwise.  In  the 
writs  to  the  sheriffs  for  the  collection  of  this  aid  it  is  stated  that 
"it  was  provided  by  the  council  that  we  should  have  from  each 
of  the  fees  of  knights  who  hold  of  us  in  capite  and  of  wards,  new 
enfeofment  as  well  as  old,  two  marcs,"  etc.^  The  sheriffs  were 
directed  themselves  to  distrain  all  free  tenants  who  held  of  lords 
by  military  service.^  This  was  but  a  return  to  the  principle 
adopted  by  Henry  II  in  1168.  The  Annals  of  Teukesbury 
say  that  the  bishops  paid  nothing,^  but  in  the  following  year 
there  is  a  letter  patent  to  the  clergy  upon  this  subject.  The 
letter  is  instructive  as  showing  that  generally  they  did  not  answer 
for  all  their  fiefs,  but  retained  some  "for  their  own  use,"  and 
the  exceptional  nature  of  this  grant  is  included  in  the  promise 
that  it  will  not  be  derogatory  to  the  churches  in  the  future.'' 

The  principles  on  which  the  various  scutages  were  levied 
seem  to  be  simple  enough,  but  in  application  they  were  compli- 
cated in  several  ways.  The  Close  Rolls  of  Henry  III  give  a 
good  idea  of  the  process  by  which  scutage  was  collected,  but 

'  Dunst.,  142.  3  Ann.  Tlieok.,  97. 

'Writ  for  the  collection  of  scutage,  Sel.  Char.,  364. 

< "  Rex Sciatis  quod  cum  nuper  rogassemus  Archiepiscopos,  Episcopos, 

Abbates,  Priores,  et  alias  personas  Ecclesiasticas  de  Regno  nostro,  quod  pro  urgenti 
necessitate  nostra  auxilium  nobis  impenderent,  Ipsi  gratis  et  spontanea  voluntate  sua 
communiter  nobis  concesserunt  quoddam  Auxilium  de  omnibus  feodis  suis,  tamdeillis 
de  quibus  nobis  respondent  quando  Scutagium  datur,  quam  de  aiiis  quae  retinent  ad 
opus  suum,  videlicet  duas  marcas  de  Scuto.  Ne  igitur  hujusmodi  concessio  et  auxilii 
praestatio  possit  aliquo  tempore  trahi  in  consequentiam,  concedimus  ....  in  posterum 
non  derogetur."     (Fat.  20,  H.  Ill ;  Madox,  I,  608.) 


THE  SCUTAGE  UNDER  HENRY  III  91 

while  the  evidence  is  most  clear  for  the  period  of  Henry  III, 
much  of  what  is  presented  is  also  true  for  the  preceding  period. 
It  had  become  quite  customary  for  a  levy  of  scutage  to  be  in 
accordance  with  a  grant  by  the  barons.  But  this  was  only  one 
side  of  the  matter.  It  was  quite  as  essential  that  the  king  in 
turn  grant  the  barons  their  scutage,  that  is,  the  scutage  of  their 
tenants.  The  king's  grant  might  be  made  in  a  general  way,  as 
when  after  the  siege  of  Bedford  he  granted  the  magnates  who 
were  in  attendance  a  scutage  and  dismissed  them.'  Regularly 
each  baron  had  a  special  writ  de  scutagio  habendo,  to  show  that 
he  was  entitled  to  the  scutage  of  his  men.  A  scutage  roll  for 
the  army  of  Poitou  of  Henry  III  contains  162  names  of  tenants 
who  were  summoned  without  special  writ ;  after  each  name  is  a 
writ  like  the  following  : 

Rex  ....  cancellario  suo,  etc.  Mandamus  vobis  quod  habere  facialis 
A.  B.  scutagium  suum  de  feodis  militum  que  nobis  tenet  in  capita,  sc.  de 
scuto  tres  marcas  pro  exercitu  nostro  Pictavie  post  primam  transfretationem 
nostram  in  quo  fuit  nobiscuni  per  preceptum  nostrum.' 

The  Close  Rolls  abound  in  such  writs.  We  can  imagine 
there  was  a  time  when  the  baron  by  himself  settled  with  his  ten- 
ants about  the  payment  of  scutage  and  other  aids.  In  1 182  the 
Abbot  of  St.  Edmunds  asked  aid  from  his  knights,  who  with 
some  demur  promised  him  20s.  from  each  one.^  But  with  the 
growing  influence  of  the  king's  court  all  controversies  over 
services  between  lord  and  tenant  might  be  tried  upon  appeal  of 
either  party  in  that  tribunal.  The  king  gave  a  writ  to  a  lord 
directed  to  the  Sheriff  of  Devon  for  having  a  reasonable  aid 
from  his  fiefs  to  marry  his  eldest  daughter,  and  all  his  knights 
came  to  his  court  by  summons  and  granted  to  him  20s.  from 
each  fief.'*  The  king  might  permit  a  lord  to  tallage  his  tenants 
or  restrict  him  from  tallaging  certain  ones.^  In  the  27th  year 
of  Henry  III    the  king  writes  that  the  bishops  "have  granted 

■Mat.  Par.,  Ill,  88.  sjocelin  de  B.,  20. 

"Bird,  Genealogist,  1884.  *Bracton's  Note  Book,  1 146. 

s"Nos  non  concedemus  de  cetero  aliqui  quod  capiat  auxilium,"etc.  (Mag.  Char.,  15.) 
1229,  "  Rex  vicecomite  ....  Praecipimus  tibi  quod,  occasione  tallagii,   de  quo 
tibi  praecipimus,  quod  faceres  illud  habere  priori  et  Dunstaple,  de  hominibus  suis  de 


92  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

US  from  each  of  their  knights'  fees  405.,  for  so  many  as  they 
are  held  to  answer  to  us  when  they  make  us  military  service. 
And  we  have  granted  to  the  same  bishops  that  for  making  us 
the  above  said  aid  they  shall  have  from  each  of  the  knights'  fees 
which  are  held  of  them  40^."'  With  the  writ  for  having  scu- 
tage  went  the  distraint  of  the  royal  officers,  and,  if  necessarv, 
they  assisted  the  mesne  lord  in  the  collection.  In  12 18  many 
barons  had  writs  addressed  to  the  sheriffs  as  follows : 

"We  direct  vou  that  without  delay  you  aid  our  beloved  and 
faithful  A.  B.  to  distrain  his  knights  and  free  tenants  for  his 
fiefs  and  wards,  and  all  others  who  hold  by  military  service,  to 
render  him  their  scutage  ....  with  which  he  ought  to 
answer  to  us  by  his  hand  at  our  exchequer."^ 

The'  lords  might  obtain  the  right  of  having  their  scutage  in 
one  of  several  ways  : 

I.  By  actual  service  in  the  army  for  which  the  levy  was 
assessed.  It  was  customary  for  the  marshal  to  record  the 
name  of  those  attending  a  campaign,  and  writs  would  be  issued 
in  favor  of  such  persons.  Many  of  the  writs  in  1218  contain 
the  clause,  "Scias  quod  A.  B.  venit  ad  fidem  et  servicium  nos- 
trum." 3  Sometimes  under  Henry  III  the  barons  had  no  right 
to  collect  the  Scutage.  In  the  27th  year  Swereford,  the  author 
of  the  Red  Book,  was  distrained  by  his  earl  for  a  fee  held  in 
Bedfordshire,  on  the  occasion  of  the  levy  of  scutage  for  Gas- 
cony.  Swereford  relied  on  the  terms  of  the  grant  of  this  scu- 
tage, "per  commune  consilium  Regni,"  namely,  that  it  should 
be  collected  by  the  sheriff  and  not  otherwise.  Accordingly  a 
writ  was  addressed  to  the  sheriff  enjoining  him  to  restore  the 
chattels  seized  by  the  earl  and  not  allow  the  scutage  to  be  col- 
lected by  anyone  but  himself."*  Under  Edward  I  a  petition  was 
formally  directed  by  the  bishops,  abbots,  earls,  barons,  and 
others  that   in   return   for  their  services  in   the  wars  of  Scotland 

Dunstaple,  non  permittas  cjuod  ipse  talliet  homines  Willelmi  Russelle  in  eadem  villa, 
nee  homines  tenentes  de  hominibus  ipsius  prioris."  (Ann.  Dunst.,  121.) 

'Mich.  Com.,  27,  H.  Ill;  Madox,  I,  609.  3Close  R.,  I,  373. 

=  Close  R.,  I,  371.  ■«  Red  Book,  xlv. 


THE  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  III  93 

the  king  direct  that  they  should  have  the  scutages  belonging  to 
them.'  A  baron  was  not  permitted  to  collect  scutage  from 
those  who  did  not  follow  him.*  The  king  might  have  the  ten- 
ants give  aid  for  the  support  of  a  baron  who  was  actually  in 
service.  In  1223  there  are  a  number  of  writs  directed  to  sher- 
iffs to  this  effect :  "  Know  that  we  have  granted  to  A.  B.  that 
he  have  his  scutage  from  his  knights  in  vour  bailiwick  to  sustain 
himself  in  the  army  of  Wales,  where  he  now  is  by  our  com- 
mand."^ 

2.  If  a  knight  could  not  himself  go  to  war,  he  was  ordinarily 
allowed  to  furnish  a  suitable  substitute.  This  is  implied  in  the 
record  of  the  scutage  for  1172,  which  was  paid  by  those  "who 
neither  went  to  Ireland,  nor  sent  knights  or  money  thither."* 
But  as  service  by  substitute  was  necessarily  by  consent  of  the 
king  or  lord,  a  baron  was  often  made  to  pay  a  fine  for  being 
permitted  to  serve  by  a  substitute.  In  the  12th  year  of  John, 
Gilbert  Percy  paid  a  fine  of  4  palfreys  that  he  might  send 
two  knights  to  serve  for  him.s  There  was  no  regularity  in  the 
amount  of  such  fines,  and  they  were  determined  for  each  indi- 
vidual case.  A  person  might  be  acquitted  of  service  in  a  given 
campaign  by  virtue  of  being  in  the  king's  service  elsewhere.^ 

3,  By  Special  Fines.  Here  again  it  must  be  recalled  that 
by  feudal  law  the  tenant  who  ignored  the  summons  to  war  was 
guilty  of  a  default  and  was  liable  to  penalty  to  the  extent  of 
forfeiture.  Such  a  punishment  was  too  harsh  for  ordinary 
times,  and  some  means  of  pecuniary  composition  as  a  means  of 
satisfying  both  sides  to  the  contract  is  not  only  natural,  but  is 
found  in  practice  wherever  such  obligations  existed.  The  scu- 
tage as  a  general  levy  seemed  for  a  time  to  equalize  the  military 
burdens  between  those  who  served  and  those  who  did  not ;  but 
this    condition    was    only   a    temporary    one.      The    burdens    of 

'Mem.  I'arlm.,  1305,  p.  122. 

■In  1 22 1  is  a  mandate  to  the  sheriff  of  Cambridgeshire  not  to  distrain  or  permit 
to  be  distrained  the  knights  of  the  Bishop  of  Rochester,  because  the  Bishop  had  his 
knights  in  the  army  of  Biham.  (Close  R.,  I,  465.) 

'Close  R.,  I,  571.  SMadox,  I,  658. 

<Pipe  R.,  18,  H.  II.  'Close  R.,  II,  10. 


94  THE  SCUTAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

knight  service  were  such  that  a  mere  payment  of  scutage  could 
not  be  considered  an  equivalent.  As  an  equivalent  for  the 
service  of  300  knights  Richard  asked  for  an  aid  equal  to  3  5.  a 
day  for  each  knight.  When  a  summons  to  war  came,  there- 
fore, the  baron  who  did  not  wish  to  answer  in  person  must  com- 
pound for  his  service  with  a  fine.  Such  a  baron  could  then 
collect  the  scutage  of  his  tenants,  and  as  a  rule  did  not  pay  the 
king's  scutage  in  addition.  The  fines  are  generally  designated 
as  paid,  both  for  freedom  from  the  service  and  for  having  one's 
scutage.  The  baron,  having  duly  performed  his  service  or  hav- 
ing paid  a  fine  which  was  accepted  in  lieu  of  service,  was  given 
a  writ  of  the  king  for  having  his  own  scutage ;  and  when  direc- 
tions were  given  the  sheriffs  as  to  how  they  were  to  collect  the 
king's  scutage  they  were  told  to  collect  "from  all  who  have  not 
our  letters,"  or  from  all  "excepting  those  who  have  quittance 
therefor  by  our  letters."'  Sometimes,  however,  fines  were  paid 
with  a  clause  saving  the  scutage  of  the  king.^  In  the  twenty- 
sixth  year  of  Henry  III  several  tenants  paid  "fines  that  they 
might  not  take  the  voyage  with  the  king  into  Gascony,  besides 
the  scutages  which  they  voluntarily  granted  the  king  for  that 
voyage; "3  in  the  third  year  of  John  is  an  item,  "from  William, 
Earl  of  Vernon,  no  scutage  is  to  be  required  in  any  sum,  since 
he  has  made  a  fine  with  the  king  pro  licentia  rcmaneiidi,  and  that 
the  king  would  take  the  scutage  of  his  knights  which  he  holds 
of  the  king  in  capites  ^ 

Just  when  fines  of  this  kind  began  would  not  be  easy  to  say. 
Of  fines  for  the  distraint  of  the  tenants  of  a  mesne  lord  under 
Henry  II  there  is  some  evidence,  as  in  the  following:  "  Rogerus 
de  Verli  deb.  5  m.  pro  habendo  servitio  de  hominibus  suis."  s 
Under  Richard  the  records  of  fines  for  passage  and  for  having 
scutage    are     considerable.       The   amount    of    these    fines    dif- 

'  Close  Rolls,  passim. 

*"Rex  remisit  David  Cumin'  transfretacionem  suam  cum  rege  in  Wascon'  pro  20 
m,  quas  regi  dat  pro  remissione'  illius  passagii  ....  salvo  tanieu  regi  scutagio." 
(Lane,  Lay  Subs.,  117.) 

3Madox,  I,  660.  SR.  18,  H.  n,  31. 

<  Madox,  L  659. 


THE  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  III  95 

fered  in  a  general  way  from  one  period  to  another.  Under 
Richard  they  were  not  very  heavy.  The  Bishop  of  Coven- 
try regularly  accounted  to  the  king  for  15  knights;  in  the 
eighth  year  of  Richard  he  paid  a  fine  of  25  /.  for  not  taking  the 
voyage  to  Normandy  and  for  having  the  scutage  of  25  knights 
altogether.'  In  the  seventh  year  of  Richard  the  Countess  of 
Warwick  paid  a  fine  of  40  w.  for  having  the  scutage  of  15 
knights  and  for  not  sending  the  knights  across  the  sea.'  There 
was  no  fixed  scale  for  determining  the  amount  of  a  fine.  Under 
Richard  the  amounts  varied  from  20  s.  \.o  15  m.  for  a  single 
knight's  fee.  Under  John  the  average  fine,  roughly  estimated, 
was  from  3  w.  to  5  /.  per  fee, 3  and  sometimes  as  high  as  i  5  m. 
Under  Henry  III  the  fines  of  this  kind  varied  from  5  /.  to  25 
7n.,  and  in  subsequent  reigns  from  20  /.  to  40  /.  Under  Edward 
the  fines  were  fixed  at  a  rate  of  40  /.  per  fee.  The  relation 
between  scutage  and  fines  may  be  illustrated  by  the  similar 
tariffs  laid  down  by  Philip  III  of  France.  In  the  thirteenth 
century  the  feudal  host  in  that  country  was  already  difficult  to 
operate.  There  were  difficulties  also  about  the  summoning  of 
rear  vassals,  whether  it  pertained  to  the  king  or  nobles  to  sum- 
mon them.  The  infinite  variety  of  the  contracts  of  vassalage 
prevented  the  contingents  furnished  from  being  a  great  help  in 
prolonged  or  distant  hostilities.  For  example,  the  Bourgeois  of 
Rouen  represented  that  they  owed  service  in  the  host  not  more 
than  one  day's  journey  from  town  :  some  persons  owed  20  days, 
others  lo  or  less.  The  abbots  had  failed  to  exercise  their  ten- 
ants in  arms.  Many  lords  preferred  to  pay  a  sum  of  money 
rather  than  serve.  In  1272  the  bishops  of  Narbonnais  protested 
that  they  were  not  bound  to  the  host.  Philip  was  very  severe 
upon  such  delinquents,  and  in  1274  offered  a  fixed  scale  of  the 
charges  to  be  incurred  by  the  different  ranks  of  soldiers.  Barons 
were  charged  100  sous  tournois  as  an  equivalent  for  the  expenses 
which   he  would   have   incurred,  and    50   sous   '' poKr  latnende ;'' 

'  Madox,  I,  638.  »  Madox,  I,  676. 

3  The  Earl  of  Clare,  who  had  over  131  knights,  rendered  a  tine  of  500  tn.  for  his 
passage.     (Madox,  I,  660.) 


96  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

the  banneret  20  sous  for  expenses  and  10  sous  *' pour V anie7ide ;" 
a  knight  10  sous  expenses  and  5  sous  '' pour  Va7ne7idey^  In  the 
period  now  under  discussion  there  was  no  similarity  between 
the  different  fines  of  the  same  year.  In  the  same  roll  the 
Abbot  of  Evesham  renders  account  for  20  /.  for  passage  and 
scutage  oi  4j4  knights'  fees,  the  Abbot  of  Pershore  10  /.  for 
2  fees,  and  the  Abbot  of  Westminster  100  m.  for  15  fees.' 
The  fines  were  paid  either  in  advance  of  the  campaign  under- 
taken or  afterwards. 3 

In  case  a  baron  did  not  properly  perform  the  ser\-ice 
required,  and  did  not,  on  the  other  hand,  compound  for  it  in  a 
satisfactory  way,  was  the  feudal  law  of  forfeiture  for  default 
always  carried  out  ?  The  summonses  were  sent  to  the  greater 
barons  individually,  and  to  all  the  tenants-in-chief,  that  they 
should  come  prepared  to  perform  the  service  due,  "as  they  love 
themselves,  their  lands,  and  tenements."  Temporary  forfeiture 
of  lands  was  not  infrequently  carried  out,  most  noticeablv  under 
John.-* 

In  the  Close  Roll  of  1223  there  is  a  list  of  persons  who  had 
been  disseized  for  not  being  in  the  army  of  Wales  in  1221,  and 
whose  estates  are  to  be  restored. s  It  is  not  likely  that  such 
disseizins  were  of  common  occurrence.  It  seems  to  be  gener- 
ally true  that  those  who  paid  fines  for  not  following  a  campaign 
were  the  greater  barons  or  those  who  held  fees  with  underten- 
ants.    The   king  could   not    afford  to  let  his  barons  off  with  a 

'Langlois,  Philippe  le  Hardi,  363-365. 

•  Madox,  I,  660. 

3"Rad'  de  Comeys  dat  domino  regi  10  m.  pro  eo  quod  possit  morari  in  .\ngiia, 
salvo  regi  Scutagio  suo."     (Lane,  Lay  Sub.,  117.) 

"  Abbas  S.  Albani  r.  c.  de  100  m.  pro  militibus  suis  quos  debuerat  misisse  in  ser- 
vicium  Regis  ultra  mare."     (R.  i,  Jn.;  Madox,  I,  659.) 

^"Malgerus  le  Vavasur  debet  300  m.  et  tres  optimos  palefridos,  pro  habenda 
saisina  terrae  suae,  unde  dissaitus  fuit  eo  quod  non  transfretavit  cum  Rege  in  Iber- 
niam,  nee  finem  fecit  pro  Passagio.     (R.  12,  Jn.;  Madox,  I,  663.) 

5 "Rex  Vic'  Suf  ....  Precipimus  tibi  quod  David  de  Lindes  qui  est  in  custodia 
A.  Reg'  Scott'  de  omnibus  terris  suis  ....  quas  in  manum  nostram  cepiste  par  pre- 
ceptum  nostrum  eo  quod  non  fuit  nee  habuit  nobiscum  servicium  suum  nobis  debitum 
in  exercitu  Wallie ;  sine  dilatione  resaissas."     (Close  R.,  L,  628.) 


f  OF  TH« 

(■UNIVERSITY 

THE  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  III  97 

mere  payment  of  scutage,  who  were  the  responsible  leaders  of 
retinues  of  knights,  great  or  small,  as  the  case  might  be.  In 
the  case  of  the  small  tenant-in-chief,  with  one  fee  or  only  a 
fraction  of  one,  who  had  no  followers  to  answer  for,  the  matter 
stood  differently.  In  the  first  place,  as  military  tactics  were,  he 
was  of  little  use  to  the  king  as  a  soldier  ;  in  the  second  place,  he 
did  not  have  the  need  which  the  greater  tenants  did  of  buying 
the  assistance  of  his  undertenants.  In  the  writ  for  collecting 
the  scutage  of  1214  the  Justiciar  is  directed  to  have  scutages 
collected  from  all  fiefs  except  of  those  who  were  in  the  army  of 
Poitou.'  In  certain  writs  of  pardon  it  is  evident  that  scutage  was 
all  that  was  asked  of  some  persons  for  not  attending  the  army. 

In  the  case  of  subtenants  scutage  was  all  that  was  regularly 
demanded  for  failure  to  follow  the  lord,  and  this  was  by  permis- 
sion of  the  king  and  at  the  rate  fixed  by  him.  Many  tenants  by 
knight  service  could  legitimately  claim  that  they  could  not  be 
held  to  active  service,  but  only  to  payment  of  scutage.  Some 
had  such  rights  expressed  in  their  charters,  and  others  asserted 
their  right,  which  seemed  to  have  for  its  only  foundation  a  long- 
continued  custom,  which  they  somehow  made  good  by  persever- 
ance. In  1 198  the  knights  of  St.  Edmunds  refused  to  do  service 
in  Normandy,  though  they  were  willing  to  pay  scutage,  and  the 
abbot  found  himself  obliged  to  hire  knights  for  the  king's  serv- 
ice.^ An  early  baronial  court  might  have  imposed  forfeiture  on 
a  tenant  or  a  fine  for  default  of  service,  but  feudal  courts  had 
declined,  and  controversies  between  lord  and  tenant  came  before 
the  king's  court,  so  that  arbitrary  fines  imposed  by  a  mesne  lord 
were  not  possible.  The  tenants,  however,  might  voluntarily  con- 
tribute towards  the  fine  which  their  lord  compounded  with  the 
king.  In  the  twenty-eighth  year  of  Henry  III  the  Abbot  of  St. 
Edmunds  agreed  with  the  king  to  pay  a  fine  of  50  /.,  provided 
each  of  his  20  knights  were  willing  to  contribute  50  s.  towards 
making  up  the  50  /.,  and,  in  case  they  were  willing,  they  should 
not  have  to  pay  scutage,  in  case  it  were  levied.^ 

'Close  R.,  I,  166.  ='Chron.  Jocelin,  63. 

3Kal.  and  Inven.,  Hen.  Ill,  28  y. 


98  THE  SCUTAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

While  the  tenants  throughout  the  country  regularly  paid 
scutage  at  the  rate  per  fee  declared  by  the  king,  the  amount 
that  an  individual  paid  might  be  fixed  by  special  agreement.  A 
clause  in  a  charter  might  say,  for  instance,  that  when  a  scutage 
was  levied  at  2  m.  one  should  pay  15  5.'  One  holding  of  the 
Abbot  of  St.  Edmunds,  when  the  regular  scutage  amounted  to 
II  5.,  paid  ^  m.^  A  certain  person  held  a  tenant  in  perpetmim 
by  the  service  of  4  knights  in  respect  to  relief  and  all  other 
services,  but  when  scutage  happened  to  be  given  he  paid  as  much 
as  pertained  to  t^j4  fees. 3 

These  facts  recall  some  statements  that  were  made  concern- 
ing the  very  beginnings  of  scutage.  The  institution  found  its 
greatest  usefulness  in  the  relations  of  baron  and  tenant,  and 
between  the  king  and  minor  tenant-in-chief,  for  the  material 
condition  of  a  small  vassal  of  the  king  was  similar  to  that  of  the 
ordinary  tenant  of  a  great  lord.  In  1 1  59  the  great  barons  served 
in  the  campaign  of  Toulouse,  while  the  "rustic  knights"  paid 
scutage.  In  the  thirteenth  century  the  great  barons  had  either 
to  serve  in  the  army  or  pay  a  fine,  just  as  though  the  scutage 
never  existed,  while  the  scutage  was  accepted  from  the  same 
class  of  persons  as  in  the  early  time.  In  case  the  tenant  refused  to 
pay  his  dues,  the  baron  had  the  right  of  distraint.  Glanvil  was 
in  doubt  whether  lords  could  distrain  tenants  against  their  will 
to  pay  aid  for  maintaining  wars ;  yet  they  could  certainly  make 
distraint  for  relief  and  the  services  due  from  the  fiefs.-*  The 
favorite  mode  of  distraint  was  to  seize  and  sell  the  chattels  of  a 
tenant.  In  case  the  lord  was  unable  to  make  the  distraint,  and 
many  times  he  was  not  able,  he  had  a  special  writ  of  aid  from 
the  Chief  Justice, ^  and  the  distraint  was  made  by  the  sheriff. 
Under  Edward  I  it  is  declared  in  a  statute  that  if  anyone  with- 
hold from  his  lord  his  due  and  accustomed  service  by  two 
years,  the  lord  shall  have  an  action  to  demand  the  land  in 
demesne  by  a  writ  of  cessavit.^ 

'  Bracton's  Note  Book,  361,  etc.  *  Glanvil,  de  Legibus,  IX,  8. 

»  Doc.  Scot.,  I,  358.  ilbid. 

J  Feet  of  Fines,  7  John,  66.  *  Stat.  Westm.,  Ed.  I,  13. 


THE  SCUTAGE  UNDER  HENRY  III  99 

In  the  system  of  land  tenure  which  we  have  to  consider,  a 
man  who  was  a  tenant  of  one  party  was  also  lord  of  another.  Sup- 
pose A  to  be  a  great  lord  holding  of  the  king  for  25  knights  ;  B 
holds  of  A  for  4  knights  ;  and  still  further  C  is  a  tenant  of  B  for 
Yz  knight.  If  matters  were  running  smoothly,  the  king  was  not 
ordinarily  concerned  with  the  way  B  fulfilled  his  duties  toward 
A,  so  long  as  A  rendered  the  service  of  his  25  knights.  In  case 
B  did  not  perform  the  services  to  which  A  had  a  right,  or  if  A 
tried  to  exact  from  B  more  than  what  belonged  to  him,  the 
king,  as  the  supreme  judge  of  the  land,  could  be  appealed  to  by 
either  party.  In  case  A  did  not  perform  the  services  which  the 
king  as  his  suzerain  could  demand,  the  king  would  make  the 
tenants  of  A  together  render  those  services,  no  matter  what  B 
had  rendered  to  A.  If  B  did  not  satisfy  A,  A  could  distrain  C ; 
but  if  C  had  rendered  his  service  to  B,  C  had  a  right  of  action 
against  B  to  be  acquitted  for  that  service.'  If  B  had  an  acquit- 
tance for  his  service  from  the  king,  this  availed  against  any 
demand  of  A.  If  it  was  in  doubt  whether  B  held  of  A  or  of  the 
king,  he  was  safe  if  he  paid  the  king  his  scutage.^  Likewise,  if 
C  could  show  that  he  had  done  the  service  for  A,  it  availed 
against  B.^  In  case  of  default  on  the  part  of  B,  A  might  dis- 
train C  for  more  than  his  right  of  service,  and  C's  action  for  sat- 
isfaction would  lie  against  B."*  If  C  was  in  the  army,  neither  A 
nor  B  had  the  right  to  take  scutage  from  him. 

Much  can  be  learned  concerning  the  status  of  knight  tenure 
from  the  records  of  litigation  in  the  king's  court.  In  disputes  of 
the  thirteenth  century  about  the  kind  of  services  to  be  rendered 
for  a  given  piece  of  land,  the  smaller  tenants  were  eager  to  prove, 
wherever  they  could,  that  their  lands  were  held  by  socage  rather 
than  military  tenure,  and  the  general  tendency  was  in  the  direc- 
tion of  such  a  transformation.  While  a  socage  tenure  did  not 
lend  the  holder  as  much  dignity  as  the  other,  the  reason  why  it 
was  preferred  can  readily  be  seen. 

'  Bracton's  N.  B.,  674. 

'"  Id.  vie.  redd'  Comp'  de  2  m  de  feodo  Rad'  de  Toeni  de  mil.  quos  idem  comes 
clamat  sed  Rad'  de  Toeni  negat."     (K.  14,  II.  II,  94.) 

3  Bracton's  N.  B.,  698,  202.  ■♦  Bracton's  N.  B.,  390. 


lOO  THE  SCUTAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

1.  The  dues  were  met  by  a  fixed  rental,  instead  of  the  uncer- 
tain demands  of  aid,  scutage,  relief,'  and  feudal  service  in  the 
army. 

2.  The  vexatious  rights  of  wardship  and  marriage,  which 
often  were  sources  of  great  abuse,  were  not  connected  with 
socage  tenures.  The  custody  of  a  minor  heir  was  left  in  the 
hands  of  the  family  instead  of  the  lord. 

3.  Lands  held  in  socage  were  partible  among  sons,  whereas 
those  held  by  knight  service  were  descended  to  the  eldest  son, 
and  were  partible  in  case  there  were  daughters  only. 

4.  As  a  rule  a  socage  tenant  had  to  give  fealty,  but  not  to  do 
homage  to  his  lord.' 

If  one  held  by  mixed  service,  a  tenure  was  called  military  by 
preference.  In  case  of  doubt  as  to  the  kind  of  services  due 
from  a  tenure,  a  charter  was  the  most  convincing  proof,  and 
took  precedence  over  other  kinds  of  evidence ;  but  if  there 
was  no  charter  at  hand,  it  was  necessary  to  prove  what  services 
had  been  rendered  in  the  past.  If  a  charter  showed  that  the 
enfeofment  called  for  the  service  of  one-third  knight,  and  the 
lord  could  show  that  the  service  of  one-half  knight  had  actu- 
ally been  rendered,  the  court  would  accept  the  terms  of  the 
charter.3  The  following  case  at  law  came  up  in  1228.  Isabella 
claimed  the  land  of  her  deceased  husband  as  a  socage  tenure. 
Richard  claimed  that  she  could  not  have  the  custody  of  the 
land,  since  the  Earl  Marshall,  of  whom  Richard  held  the  fief, 
had  that  custody,  and  admitted  a  charter  which  he  gave  Stephen, 
the  husband,  by  which  Richard  granted  Stephen  the  land  for 
homage  and  service  ;  Stephen  to  render  2m.  a  year.  Richard 
and  his  heirs  acquitted  him  of  the  forinsec  service  which  per- 
tained to  the  same  one-fourth  of  a  knight's  fee,  so  that  the 
freemen  who  held  of  the  same  fee  always  did  forinsec  service  for 
Stephen,  so  that  they  gave  at  the  scutage  of  Montgomery  a  scu- 
tage of  yim.     Thus  Stephen  preferred  to  hold   the  one-fourth 

'Some  modifications  in  regard  to  Relief.  See  Polluck  and  Maitland,  His.  Eng. 
Law,  I,  289. 

*  Polluck  and  Maitland,  I  lis.  Eng.  Law,  I,  286. 
3Bracton's  N.  B.,  657. 


THE  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  III  lOt 

knight's  fee  at  an  annual  payment  of  2  m.  rather  than  the  regular 
feudal  services.  At  the  same  time  the  tenants  of  Stephen  paid 
him  a  scutage,  which  he  did  not  render  to  his  lord.  It  was 
decided  that  the  land  was  not  a  socage,  and  that  Isabella  could 
not  claim  the  custody.'  The  land  owed  knight  service,  though 
the  individual  did  not. 

The  Prior  of  Lewes,  as  chief  lord,  placed  a  land  owing  mili- 
tary service  at  a  fixed  rental  ("posuit  servicium  militare  ad 
denanos"),  so  that,  instead  of  rendering  for  one-third  knight's 
fee,  it  paid  405.  a  year.  Yet  he  claimed  that  it  was  still  a  mili- 
tary tenure  and  was  not  partible.  Six  pounds  a  year  for  every 
service  seems  to  have  been  a  common  rate  for  j)lacing  a  knight's 
tee  at  a  fixed  rental,  instead  of  the  ordinary  feudal  services,  at 
this  period.^ 

As  a  rule,  a  lord  had  the  custody  of  the  heirs  of  his  military 
tenants,  but  when  the  same  party  held  lands  by  socage  tenure, 
as  well  as  lands  by  military  tenure,  it  was  not  always  possible  for 
the  lord  to  realize  tJiis  right.  Herardus  de  Vernon  could  not 
claim  the  son  of  Geoffrey  and  Katrina,  because  Geoffrey  held  10 
librates  in  socage  of  other  men  and  7  acres  military  of  Hever- 
ardus.3  If  a  party  were  enfeoffed  of  more  than  one  lord  the 
custody  of  the  heirs  regularly  went  to  the  lord  whose  ancestors 
had  made  the  prior  enfeofment.'^ 

Another  form  of  evidence  as  to  whether  a  tenure  were  mili- 
tary or  not  is  found  in  the  question  of  homage.  If  a  person 
owed  homage,  the  tenement  was  presumably  one  by  knight 
service  or  serjeantry.s  If  one  owed  no  homage,  it  was  question- 
able if  he  owed  scutage.^  If  a  land  was  given  in  Tnantagium,  it 
was  apt  to  be  placed  under  lighter  burdens,  and  sometimes  abso- 

'Bracton's  N.  B.,  288. 

'  Wm.  Lungespey  and  his  wife  were  asked  by  what  service  they  held  a  knight's 
fee,  and  they  said  for  6/.  a  year  for  every  service.  (Bracton'sN.  B.,  627.)  The  same 
rate  as  in  the  other  cases  quoted. 

Stephen  de  Ceoherst  held  a  land  by  rendering  4  sol.  a  year,  and  2s.  scutage  when 
the  scutage  became  fixed  at  2m.     {Ibid.,  477.) 

3  Bracton's  N.  B.,  237.  spolluck  and  Maitland,  His.  Eng.  Law,  I,  286. 

*  Bracton's  \.  B.,  661.  'Bracton's  N.  B.,  747. 


I02  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

lutely  free.  The  anomalous  condition  of  such  lands  remained 
until  after  the  third  inheritance,  when  it  reverted  to  its  former 
status.' 

It  has  already  been  noticed  how  the  older  baronies  were 
breaking  up.  Having  reverted  to  the  king,  they  were  given  out 
again,  divided  among  two  or  more  holders.  Another  way  in 
which  they  disintegrated  was  by  partition,  which  was  permissible 
when  the  holder  left  no  male  issue,  but  more  than  one  daughter. 
Lyttelton  says  that  from  the  time  of  William  I  to  Henry  H  he 
knew  of  no  baronies  divided  into  more  than  three  parts,  but 
after  that  time  they  split  into  very  small  parts,  so  that  under 
Richard  H  a  certain  knight  held  one-hundredth  part  of  a 
barony.^  Peter  of  Savoy  held  the  honor  of  Richmond  for  the 
service  of  five  knights.  He  complained  that,  while  the  honor 
had  been  diminished  by  many  knights'  fees,  he  remained  burdened 
for  five  knights. 3  Regarding  the  unstable  condition  of  feudal 
territory,  the  words  of  Luchaire  are  as  applicable  to  England  as 
to  France :  "  One  seeks  in  vain  in  the  feudal  world  for  the  fixity 
and  regularity  which  would  seem  to  comport  with  the  a  priori 
relations  between  fiefs.  The  order  of  tenures  has  varied  not  only 
from  period  to  period,  but  considerably  within  each  period."* 
Before  the  statutes  of  1279  and  1290  of  Edward  I  there  were 
no  effective  restraints  on  the  alienation  of  fees  or  subinfeudation. 
The  clause  in  the  charter  of  1217,  that  "no  free  man  should  give 
or  sell  to  anyone  so  much  of  his  land  that  from  the  remainder 
the  service  could  not  be  sufficiently  rendered  the  lord  of  the  fief 
which  belongs  to  that  fief," 5  was  too  indefinite  to  be  effective. 
The  statute  de  viris  religiosis  in  1279  forbade  the  fraudulent 
bestowal  of  estates  on  religious  foundations,  so  that  the  donor 
might  hold  them  as  fiefs  of  the  Church,  and  the  statute  quia 
emptores  in  1290  directed  that  in  all  future  transfers  of  land  the 
purchaser,  instead  of  becoming  the  feudal  dependent  of  the 
alienor,  should  enter  into  the  same  relations  in  which  the  alienor 

'  Bracton's  N.  B.,  273,  279,  477,  664.  •♦  Luchaire,  Manuel,  221. 

=>  Lyttelton,  His.  Hen.  H.  HI,  127.  sSel.  Char.,  346. 

n.etters  Hen.  IH,  H,  210. 


THE  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  III  103 

had  Stood  to  the  next  lord.  These  enactments  operated  to  cor- 
rect these  abuses.  Yet  there  is  some  reason  to  think  that  if  the 
chief  lord  could  enforce  his  rights,  a  tenant  might  be  prevented 
from  making  an  undesirable  enfeofment,  as  was  once  done  in 
1275/  showing  that  in  a  measure  the  statutes  of  Edward  were 
the  recognition  of  rights  which  already  had  some  vague  exist- 
ence. 

A  few  words  will  suffice  to  discuss  the  general  relation  of 
knighthood  and  knight  tenure  of  this  time.  Nothing  can  be 
plainer  than  that  the  old  system  of  enfeofment  as  a  basis  for 
the  army  service  was  outgrown.  The  accepted  principle  that  a 
given  piece  of  land  being  once  a  knight's  fee  was  always  a 
knight's  fee,  no  matter  how  much  it  was  cut  up  or  transferred, 
coupled  with  the  fact  that  there  were  no  definite  restrictions  on 
alienation  or  subinfeudation,  other  than  the  vague  clause  in  the 
charter  of  1217,=  brought  the  system  of  knight  service  to  a  state 
of  great  intricacy.  There  is  nothing  unusual  in  a  barony  made 
up  of  the  following  enfeofments,  several  tenements  of  3  fees 
each,  6  and  \  and  \  fees,  5,  4|,  \\,  2|-,  ^,  9^,  2,  54-,  2\,  \,  ^V 
fees.  Anyone  of  the  tenants  of  this  barony  might  have  several 
ranks  of  subtenants  holding  of  one  another  and  of  him  respect- 
ively. Compare  such  a  barony  with  the  cartulary  of  the  Abbey 
of  Peterborough  given  1125-28!  In  the  statement  of  enfeof- 
ments made  therein  of  663^  fiefs,  there  is  only  one  tenement  of 
]A,  fee,  and  two  of  y^,  fee. 3  It  would  almost  go  without  saying 
that  the  smaller  tenants  were  not  of  much  account  so  far  as  the 
army  was  concerned.  In  the  cartulary  of  the  Abbey  of  Eves- 
ham the  reluctance  of  its  knight  tenants  to  do  the  king's  serv- 
ice is  complained  of.-*  The  abbots  of  Ramsey  had  not  followed 
the  method  generally  adopted  by  the  tenants-in-chief  of  creating 
definite   knights'   fees   on   their   estates.     The   abbey  owed   the 

'  Chron.  Petrob.,  22. 

'Charter  1217,  §  39  ;   Polluck  and  Maitland,  I,  310. 

3Chron.  Petrob.,  Appendix. 

^Hicnotantur  milities  et  liberi  tenentes  de  Abbatia  de  Evesham,  multi  injuste 
fefati,  pauci  vero  juste.  Isti  nullum  servitium  faciunt  ecclesiae  nisi  servitium  Regis 
el  hoc  tepide.  (Burton  Cart.,  2.) 


I04  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

king  the  service  of  4  knights,  but  instead  of  there  being  4  ten- 
ants who  were  each  time  to  render  this  service,  there  were  some 
18  who  were  to  elect  the  4  who  were  to  serve  on  a  particular 
occasion,  while  those  who  remained  were  to  contribute  towards 
the  expenses  of  those  who  served  in  person.^  The  arrangement 
did  not  work  very  well.  In  1212  the  king  sent  a  special  writ  to 
the  sheriff,  directing  him  to  see  that  the  4  knights  of  the  abbey 
of  Ramsey  who  were  in  his  service  have  ?iecessaria  sua  from  the 
other  knight  tenants  who  remained.'  In  1258  the  abbot  brought 
the  manorial  court  of  Broughton  together,  which  selected  4 
knights  to  do  the  required  service  at  a  payment  of  4  5.  a  day, 
but  the  tenants  would  not  serve  when  elected,  and  the  abbot  had 
to  hire  his  knights  and  Serjeants  as  best  he  could. 3  In  1257  the 
Abbot  of  St.  Albans  could  hardly  get  his  military  tenants  to 
admit  that  they  owed  personal  service  at  all.*  The  underten- 
ants are  not  the  only  ones  who  showed  themselves  reluctant  to 
go  to  war.  The  tenants-in-chief  often  preferred  to  pay  fines, 
though  they  were  heavy,  than  attend  an  expedition.  In  1142 
the  king  writes  to  his  justiciars  to  remit  the  fines  which  had 
been  made  for  non-attendance,  and  induce  the  knights  to  come 
prepared  with  horses  and  arms  ;  and  if  remitting  the  fines  were 
not  sufificient,  they  should  offer  money  out  of  the  treasury  to 
induce  them  to  come. 5  There  is  reason  to  suppose  that  when 
the  barons  went  to  war  with  the  king  they  were  not  always 
required  to  furnish  their  full  service.  In  11 57,  according  to 
Matthew  of  Paris,  whoever  owed  the  king  military  service  was 
summoned  against  the  Welsh.^  The  writs  of  summons  to  the 
barons,  as  printed  in  the  Foedera,  give  the  quotas  to  be  fur- 
nished by  them.  E.g.: 
Roger  de   Mohun,  to  serve  as  a   fourth   knight,  that   is,  himself 

with  three  others. 
Henry  de  Tracy,  to  serve  as  a  third  knight. 
John  de  Corteny,  to  serve  as  a  third  knight,  etc. 

■Chron.  Ram.,  212,  37S;  Lib.  Nig.,  257;  Stubbs,  C.  H.,  I,  262. 
'Close  R.,  I,  123.  s Foedera,  I,  404. 

3  Sel.  Soc,  II.  76.  '  Mat.  Par.,  V,  639. 

♦  Mat.  Par.,  VI,  372-76. 


THE  SCUT  AGE  UNDER  HENRY  III  105 

Only  one  was  to  bring  as  many  as  4  knights.'  These  quotas 
represent  but  small  portions  of  the  fees  held  by  these  barons. 
Thus,  William  de  Bellocamp  was  asked  for  three  knights ;  in 
1230  he  is  accounted  for  7  knights. "" 

Robert  de  Bellocamp  for  3  knights;  in  1230  he  is  accounted 
for  17.3 

William  de  Monte  Acuto  of  Somerset  for  i  knight;  in  1230 
John    de    Monte   Acuto    of   the   same    county   is    accounted   for 

10.3 

Robert  de  Newburg  for  i  knight;  in  1230  is  accounted 
for  15.3 

At  the  same  time  the  ecclesiastics  were  summoned  for  their 
full  service/  and  the  Abbot  of  Ramsey  actually  endeavored  to 
bring  4  knights,  his  regular  quota,  into  service. s  There  is  a 
tendency,  which  becomes  more  noticeable  under  Edward,  for  the 
barons  to  lower  their  quotas  if  they  could.  In  the  22d  year 
the  king  had  24  persons  brought  together  to  testify  whether 
William  de  Fesnes  or  any  of  his  ancestors  did  or  ought  to  do 
more  than  the  service  of  one  knight  for  the  6  fees  which  he 
held  in  capite,  and  whether  the  full  service  of  6  knights  was 
rendered  in  scutage  at  the  Exchequer.^  In  1221  William 
Mareshalle,  the  Earl  of  Pembroke,  who  was  then  out  of  favor, 
writes  to  the  king  that  he  has  learned  of  the  gathering  of  the 
force  against  the  Earl  of  Albermarle  and  regretted  that  he  had 
not  been  summoned.  Wherefore  he  supplicated  the  king  to 
send  him  a  writ  telling  him  with  how  many  knights  he  wished 
him  to  come. 7  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  scutages  of 
Henry  II  were  paid  with  fair  promptness  at  the  Exchequer. 
How  different  this  had  become  in  the  13th  century  can  be  seen 
in  the  way  the  scutage  of  Poitou,  levied  in  the  i6th  year  of 
John,  was  rendered  for  the  Honor  of  Lancaster,  which  con- 
tained 78^^,  \,  and  ^  fees. 

'  Rymer's  P'oedera,  I,  635.  s  Above. 

»  Madox,  I,  660.  «  Memor.,  22,  Hen.  Ill ;  Madox,  I,  648. 

^  Ibid.,  661.  7  Royal  Letters,  I,  170. 

*  Foedera,  636. 


lo6  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

In  the  Pipe  Roll,  17th  year  of  John,  the  Sheriff  renders  account 

for 157/.  12^.  qd. 

In  the  Pipe  Roll,  2d  year  of    Henry   III,  the    Sheriff    renders 

account  for 127/.  \2s.  qd. 

In  the  Pipe  Roll,  3d  year, 127/.  12s.  qd. 

4th  year, 118/.  i65'.  id. 

5th  year, 107/.  16^.  id. 

6th  year, 107/.  i6s.  id. 

7th  year,  ..--..        102/.  \d. 

Qth  year, 102/.  id.^ 

Although  the  Scutage  grew  up  as  applied  to  knights'  fees 
only,  in  the  13th  century  it  evidently  was  collected  from  some 
tenures  by  serjeantry.  It  has  been  shown  how  under  Henry  II 
there  -wdiS  promissio  servie?itum  of  a  most  irregular  kind,  but  there 
was  nothing  of  a  scutage  upon  serjeantry  tenures.  From  that 
time,  however,  the  use  of  Serjeants  in  the  army  became  of 
increasing  importance,  Gneist  estimates  that  the  number  of 
Serjeants  in  the  armies  were  to  the  knights  in  the  ratio  of  8  to  i. 
The  muster  rolls  of  Edward  show  that  the  difference  was 
greater  even  than  this,  for  two  Serjeants  were  considered 
exchangeable  for  one  knight,  and  many  owing  knight  service, 
especially  for  fractional  parts  of  fees,  offered  the  service  of  Ser- 
jeants. Tenure  by  serjeantry  is  the  most  irregular  of  all  the 
different  classes  of  tenure,  and  includes  many  kinds  and  all 
degrees  of  services.^  Some  serjeantries  called  for  services  in 
the  army, 3  and  it  is  not  strange  that  scutage  was  exacted  from 
such  tenements.  But  it  was  the  exception  and  not  the  rule  for 
a  serjeantry  to  pay  scutage,  for  in  other  cases  whether  a  party 
should  pay  scutage  or  not  depended  on  whether  the  tenement 
was  by  knight  service  or  serjeantry.  William  Aguilon  being 
able  to  prove  that  he  held  by  serjeantry,  namely,  to  furnish  a 
cook  at  the  king's  coronation,  was  acquitted  of  the  scutages 
charged  against  him."* 

'Lane.  Lay.  Subs.,  122-25.  "Polluck  and  Maitland,  I,  262. 

3  Persons  holding  by  serjeantry  had  tenants  owing  knight  service,  e.  g.,  for  i   fee, 
g^or^fee.     (Madox,  I,  650,  651.) 
*Madox,  I,  651. 


1277  @  405. 

1282  @  40s. 

1300  @,  40^. 

1302  @  40s. 

1303  ®   405. 

1306  @  <\os 

CHAPTER  VI. 

SCUTAGE    AND    KNIGHT    SERVICE    UNDER    EDWARD    I. 

There  were  several  scutagcs  during  the  reign  of  Edward  I, 
as  follows  : 

For  an  army  of  Wales, 

"         "      of  Scotland, 
An  aid  to  marry  daughter, 
For  an  army  of  Scotland, 

The  feudal  army  was  thus  called  upon  only  for  insular  wars. 
The  time  had  not  come  for  a  standing  army,  but  the  continental 
wars  were  manned  by  Welsh  and  Scotch  mercenaries  and  by 
subsidized  forces  from  Flanders  or  Castile.'  The  rate  of  the 
royal  levies  was  uniformly  40  s.  on  the  fee,  although  by  the 
first  statute  of  Westminster,  1275,  it  was  decided  that  the  aid 
taken  by  a  lord  to  knight  his  son  or  marry  his  daughter  should 
not  be  over  20s.'  In  reference  to  the  levies  of  knight  service 
for  this  period  many  curious  features  present  themselves.  In 
the  first  place  it  was  quite  impossible  for  the  Churchmen  to  get 
their  military  tenants  to  do  service.  The  Abbot  of  Peterborough 
in  1277  could  not  prevail  upon  his  men  to  serve  even  at  his  own 
expense. 3  Out  of  a  list  of  48  bishops  and  abbots  in  the  Par- 
liamentary Writs  of  1277,  8  rendered  their  service  by  knights  or 
Serjeants.^  The  difficulty  of  obtaining  fully  equipped  knights  is 
evident  on  all  sides.  Most  of  those  attempting  to  render  their 
service  do  so  by  means  of  scrjcants,  two  Serjeants  being  com- 
monly accepted  instead  of  one  knight.  One  who  owes  4  knights 
presents  2  and  requests  that  he  be  permitted  to  do  the  service  in 

'  Koedera,  II,  637,  676.  ^Chron.  Petrob.,  24. 

'Statute,  Sel.  Char.,  450.  ■♦  Parim.  Writs,  I,  197. 

107 


lo8  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

two  periods  of  40  days.'  In  1282  the  need  of  horses  was  such 
that  it  is  said  many  could  not  do  their  service  even  if  they  wished.^ 
Most  striking  of  all  is  the  reduction  in  the  number  of  fees 
accounted  for  by  the  great  tenants-in-chief.  Compare  the 
quotas  accounted  for  in  1282  with  the  old  servitinm  dcbitum.^ 


Archbishop  of  York, 

Bishop  of  Durham, 

"        "  Exeter, 

"  Bath  and  Wells, 

5 
-     9 

"     5 

282 
fiefs 

nth  century 

20      fiefs 

10 

17%      " 
20 

"  Lincoln, 

5 

' 

60 

"  London, 

-     5 

• 

20 

Abbot  of  St.  Albans,      - 

6 

' 

6 

"       "  Abbingdon, 
"       "  St.  Edmunds, 

-     3 
6 

: 

30 

40 

The  lay  barons  did  about  the  same,  for  William  de  Bello 
Camp,  Earl  of  Surrey,  offered  6  knights,  Humphry  de  Bohun, 
3  knights,  John  Warenne,  Earl  of  Surrey,  1 1  knights.*  Very 
few  proffered  more  than  3  knights.  How  this  change  in  the 
quotas  furnished  by  the  tenants-in-chief  came  about  is  obscure. 
The  earliest  writs  of  summons  which  are  at  hand  show  that  the 
king  was  accustomed  to  call  upon  the  tenants-in-chief  for  small 
quotas,  when  it  was  unnecessary  to  bring  out  the  whole  force. 
Thus,  in  1234,  Henry  de  Trubleville  is  ordered  to  attend  '' te 
quintoy  that  is,  with  four  other  knights;  Walter  Godarville  ''te 
altera,''  that  is,  with  one.'  To  furnish  large  numbers  of  knights, 
as  formerly,  would  under  the  new  conditions  be  excessively 
arduous,  if  not  impossible.  The  great  proponderance  of  the 
fighting  forces  was  now  infantry  rather  than  cavalrv.  The  ratio 
of  cavalry  to  infantry  may  be  inferred  from  statements  of  the 
chroniclers  like  the  following:  "Earl  Patrick  with  336  mailed 
horses  and  6000  infantry;"^  "15  knights,  32  armigers  and  lOOO 
foot  soldiers  ;" 7  "  4000  infantry  and  200  cavalry."^     Most  of  the 

'Parlm.  Writs,  I,  200.  s Lord's  Report,  i,  6,  7;  Foedera,  I,  635. 

'Ibid.,  22t.  'Wig.,  527. 

^Ibid.,  235.  Tibid.,  484. 

*Ibid.,  228,  229.  SRishanger,  147. 


SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  UNDER  EDWARD  I  109 

cavalry  used  were  mounted  Serjeants,  not  knights.  So  that  even 
when  all  the  knight  service  due  was  called  for,  the  barons  fur- 
nished no  more  than  what  was  reasonably  necessary.  Gilbert 
of  Clare  placed  10  knights  in  service,  with  a  promise  that  he 
would  send  more  if  it  were  found  that  more  were  due.  So  far 
as  the  Scutage  was  concerned  this  change  made  no  difference 
whatever.  The  relations  between  the  tenants-in-chief  and  the 
king  were  no  longer  on  a  scutage  basis.  The  king  profited  by 
the  Scutage  only  indirectly,  as  it  was  paid  by  undertenants  to 
the  lords.  The  obligations  of  tenants-in-chief  to  the  king  were 
satisfied  by  fines,  or  informal  payments  ^'m  gardcroba"  or  "  in 
camera."  In  1277  the  Abbot  of  Peterborough  paid  250  w.  for 
the  service  of  5  knights  ;'   in  1282  the  same  paid  a  like  amount.^ 

Another  mode  of  summons  was  analogous  to  the  distraint  of 
knighthood.  In  1296  those  having  40  librates  of  land  were 
called  upon  to  provide  themselves  with  horses  and  arms  to  fol- 
low the  king  at  his  expense. 3  In  1297  those  with  20  librates 
were  summoned.  The  sheriffs  made  reports  of  the  persons 
holding  20  librates  in  their  counties;  in  Hertford  53,  of  whom 
13  were  churchmen;  in  Nottingham  and  Derby  181,  including 
36  churchmen;  in  Northampton  21 5,  including  48  churchmen 
and  30  women.t  So  that  in  all  England  there  were  hardly  more 
than  3000  persons  assessed  on  this  basis.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
one  can  estimate  from  the  numbers  of  infantry  which  the  Commis- 
sions of  Array  were  deputed  to  raise  from  the  several  counties, 
in  1297,  from  Northumberland  lOOO,  from  York  4000,  from  Lan- 
caster 3000,  etc.,  the  available  force  of  infantry  for  the  whole 
country  must  easily  have  been  60,000  foot  soldiers.  ^ 

The  Scutage  as  a  means  of  revenue  to  the  crown  was  not 
worth  while  keeping  up.  After  the  reign  of  Edward  I  the  only 
levies  reported  are  one  under  Edward  II  and  one  under  Edward 
III.  Even  an  aid  levied  upon  all  the  knights'  fees  could  not 
compare  in  amount  with  the  other  forms  of  taxes.    The  Fifteenth, 

'Chron.  Petrob.,  24.  *■  Ibid.,  294. 

^Ibid.,  40.  s  Parlm.  Writs,  I,  308. 

3Parlm.  Writs,  I,  278. 


no  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  K' NIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

in  1224-25,  was  at  least  31,000/.;'  the  Thirtieth,  in  1237,  was 
22,000  /. ;  '^  the  Twentieth,  in  1 270,  was  3 1 ,488  I?  As  an  influence 
against  the  feudal  character  of  the  chief  lords  the  institution  had 
outlived  its  day.  The  lords  were  little  more  than  middle  men, 
who  by  a  fiction  of  law  had  to  be  reckoned  as  a  factor  in  passing 
money  from  the  lower  tenants  to  the  crown.  They  made  the 
grants  in  Parliament,  but  in  so  doing  they  acted  in  the  capacity 
of  legislators  representing  more  or  less  truly  the  nation.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  collection  in  behalf  of  an  individual  lord  had 
to  be  by  the  officers  of  the  crown  or  by  permission  of  the  same. 
The  methods  of  collection  were  complex,  and  the  operation  of  a 
levy  was  becoming  more  and  more  slow,  the  payment  of  the 
money  more  and  more  reluctant,  until  in  the  loth  year  of 
Edward  II  collectors  for  the  scutages  of  the  28th,  31st  and  34th 
years  of  Edward  I  were  sent  out,  with  injunctions  ''  quod  rebelles 
et  inobedientes  Collectoribus  Saitagii  amercianttiry  *  The  scutage  of 
the  5th  year  was  enrolled  in  the  7th  year,  and  that  of  the  loth 
year  in  the  15th.  The  whole  system  was  unnatural,  because  it 
rested  upon  historical  tradition  whether  a  piece  of  land  owed 
this  kind  of  service  or  not,  and  it  took  laborious  inquisitions 
from  time  to  time  to  ascertain  the  true  status  of  the  tenants. 
The  burden  of  proof  whether  he  had  fulfilled  the  service  or  not 
rested  with  the  tenant,  and  he  might  have  to  prove  17  years 
back  that  he  or  his  ancestor  had  done  the  service  required. 

Knighthood  and  knight  tenure  did  not  necessarily  go  together. 
If  one  was  a  knight,  it  did  not  follow  that  he  held  land  by  knight 
tenure  ;  if  he  held  by  knight  tenure,  it  did  not  follow  that  he  was  a 
knight.  In  1224  was  an  order  that  every  layman  of  full  age 
who  held  a  knight's  fee  or  more  should  have  himself  knighted. s 
Fines  were  taken  for  respite  under  this  order.^  1234  was  an  order 
that  all  holding  in  capite  a  knight's  fee  or  more  should  take 
arms  and  be  knighted. ^      1242  there  was  an  order  to  the  sheriffs 

'Lane,  Lay  Subs.,  15.  5 Close  Roll,  H,  p.  69. 

*Ibid.,  49.  6  Close  Roll,  II,  pp.  26,  36. 

"ilbid.,  loi.  7  Royal  Letters,  I,  p.  456. 
♦Madox,  His.  Exch.,  I.,  684. 


SCUTAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  UNDER  EDWARD  I  ill 

to  distrain  all  those  having  lands,  whether  in  knight's  fee  or 
socage,  to  take  arms.  At  the  same  time  the  sheriffs  were  told 
to  leave  in  peace  any  who  had  not  as  much  as  20  librates,  even 
if  they  had  an  entire  knight's  fee.'  1254  those  having  20 
librates  were  summoned  to  do  service. ="  1256  there  was  a  dis- 
traint of  all  those  having  lands  to  a  yearly  value  of  15/.  to  get 
themselves  knighted,  or  to  pay  fines  for  respite.^  The  distraint 
of  knighthood  at  the  rate  of  20  librates  or  even  15  librates  is  not 
to  be  considered  unreasonable  so  far  as  the  rate  is  concerned. 
It  seems  to  be  the  general  rule  that  actual  knights'  fees  were  not 
worth  nearly  as  much  as  20  /.  a  year.  It  is  true  that  as  early  as 
Henry  II  there  are  instances  of  20  librates  of  land  being  held 
as  an  equivalent  of  a  knight's  fee.*  But  in  general  the  assimila- 
tion of  20  librates  to  a  knight's  fee  was  a  gradual  process,  and 
even  then  was  a  somewhat  artificial  estimate.  A  certain  barony 
whose  value  is  stated  to  be  at  94  /.  a  year  held  for  30  knights. s 
One  finds  scrips  of  land  held  as  follows  :  10  librates  for  the  serv- 
ice of  I  knight;^  50  librates  (Anjevian  money)  for  i  knight ;? 
4  librates  and  4  solidatae  for  ^  knight;^  25  marcatae  for  i 
knight. 9  The  distraints  were  not  empty  threats,  for  in  the  17th 
year  of  Henry  HI  Roger  de  Sumery  was  disseized  of  all  his 
lands  in  Worcestershire  for  neglecting  to  take  the  honor  of 
knighthood  upon  summons.'"  It  seems  that  not  a  great  number 
of  persons  were  found  eligible  to  knighthood  in  this  way.  In 
1254  there  are  5  names  returned  for  the  county  of  Lancaster,  of 
those  holding  20  librates  of  land  in  capite  of  the  king."  In  1256 
the  sheriff  of  Lancashire  reported  the  names  of  6  as  holding  15 
librates  and  more."*     Aside  from  the  fact  that  not  many  persons 

'Close  Roll,  26,  H.  Ill;  Lane,  Lay  Sub.,  p.  62. 

»  Sel.  Char.,  p.  376.  3  Lane,  Lay  Sub.,  p.  28. 

*"Et  Comes  Galfridus  de  Mendeville  dedit  domino  Gwarino  fratri  meo,  et  mihi 
Sabriteswrthe  pro  74  libratis  terrae  ;  singulas  20  libratas  pro  servicio  I  militis."  (Red 
Book,  p.  356.) 

5  Bracton's  N.  B.,  1 182.  » Ibid.,  p.  84. 

*  Rot.  Char.,  L  p.  33-  '        '  Doc.  Scot.,  \,  p.  43. 

'  Ibid.,  p.  34. 

'°  Brady,  Introduction  to  the  Old  Eng.  His.,  p.  36;  Lane,  Lay  Sub.,  p.  30. 

"  Lane,  Lay  Sub.,  p.  28.  "Ibid.,  p.  29. 


1 1 2  THE  SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

had  a  revenue  as  great  as  20/.  a  year,  it  may  be  suspected  that 
the  assessments  were  not  strictly  made.  Edward  I,  in  his  i8th 
year,  wrote  to  the  sheriffs  of  London  to  distrain  all  those  hold- 
ing 40/.  a  year  in  land  or  rent.  The  sheriffs  made  answer  that 
although  they  had  inquiries  made  of  good  and  lawful  men  upon 
oath,  they  were  unable  to  find  anyone  in  London  who  had  40/. 
a  year  for  certain.'  In  the  30th  year  of  Edward  a  like  order 
received  a  similar  reply.' 

If  a  person  was  distrained  for  knight  service  or  knighthood 
on  the  ground  of  having  20  librates,  or  40  librates,  as  the  case 
might  be,  it  did  not  follow  that  his  land  became  a  knight  tenure 
in  the  sense  that  an  ancient  knight's  fee  was.  A  plea  in  the 
Common  Bench  illustrates  this  point.  The  case  was  whether  B, 
who  held  by  escuage  of  A,  owed  also  aid  for  the  marriage  of  an 
eldest  daughter.  It  was  held  that  the  aid  was  not  accessory  to 
escuage;  "for  if  one  holds  of  you  20  librates  of  land,  and  you 
are  about  to  distrain  him  for  making  your  eldest  son  a  knight, 
and  he  can  show  that  none  of  your  ancestors  was  ever  a  knight, 
I  think  that  you  cannot  avow  the  taking."" 

While  the  institution  of  knight  tenure  was  declining  in  these 
ways  there  was,  on  the  other  hand,  a  corresponding  effort  to 
maintain  the  honor  of  knighthood  itself.  While  men  shrank 
from  the  burdens  of  military  tenure  it  was  something  of  an  honor 
to  be  a  knight.  It  was  customary  for  the  royal  family  to  have 
the  princes  knighted  upon  state  occasions,  and  at  the  hands  of 
eminent  persons.  In  honor  of  the  marriage  of  Edmund  of  Corn- 
wall in  1272  many  noble  youths  were  knighted. 3  When  the 
young  Edward,  in  1306,  was  knighted,  300  others  were  knighted 
the  same  day,  and  600  that  week.*  John  de  Blount,  the  mayor 
of  London,  accepted  knighthood  at  that  time.  In  the  records 
of  the  13th  century  a  knight  is  commonly  given  the  title  domitius 
(Sir),  as  dominus  Joha?incs  Heyron  Miles.  In  giving  the  list  of  a 
jury  it  was  worth  while  to  indicate  which  ones  were  knights.  In 
the    functions    relating   to    the  government    the  knights  ranked 

'  Lib.  Albus.  3Wykes,  p.  251. 

2  Year  Book,  XX,  Ed.  I,  p.  260.  <Annal.  Lund.,  I,  p.  146. 


SCUT  AGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  UNDER  EDWARD  I  113 

next  to  the  barons,  in  the  order  of  ecclesiastics,  earls,  barons, 
knights.  A  clear  distinction  between  knight  and  baron  is  not 
easily  made.  In  a  general  sense  a  baron  was  any  person  holding 
of  the  crown  m  capite  by  military  service.'  But  there  is  a  dis- 
tinction, borne  out  in  Magna  Charta,  between  greater  barons  and 
lesser  barons.^  When  it  is  stated  that  the  king  called  the  barons 
in  Parliament,  the  word  meant  simply  those  barons  whom  the 
king  chose  to  summons,  for  there  is  no  hereditary  right  on  the 
part  of  the  barons  to  be  summoned  before  1295.3  A  barony 
was  a  mere  collection  of  knights'  fees,  and  there  was  no  particu- 
lar number  of  knights'  fees  necessary  to  constitute  a  barony.  So 
that  a  fixed  distinction  between  barons  and  knights  who  were 
tenants-in-chief  cannot  be  made  for  this  period.  The  knights 
were  early  employed  in  matters  of  administration,  for  service  on 
juries,  and  took  precedence  over  other  "lawful  men,"  and  in  the 
13th  century  they  found  a  place  in  Parliament.  Suit  at  court, 
however,  was  generally  regarded  in  the  light  of  a  burden,  and 
even  summons  to  Parliament  was  not  at  first  sought  after  as  an 
honor  and  a  privilege,  but  as  the  means  of  mitigating  demands 
for  money. ■♦  So  that  altogether  the  honor  of  knighthood  did 
not  counterbalance  the  disadvantages. 

'  Pike,  Const.  His.  House  of  Lords,  p.  89. 

*  Mag.  Char.,  §  14. 
3Stubbs,  C.  H.,  H,  p.  192  ;  Pike,  p.  93. 

*  Pike,  House  of  Lords,  p.  92. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

SOURCES 

PUBLICATIONS    OF    THE  RECORD  COMMISSIONERS. 

Rotuli  Chartarum  in  Turri  Londinensi  Asscrvati :  Ed.,  Thomas  Duffus  Hardy.     1837. 
Ancient  Laws  and  Institutes  of  England  :  Ed.,  Benjamin  Thorpe.     2  vols.     1840. 
Rotulorum  Originalium  in  Curia  Scaccarii  Abbreviatio.      Hen.  HI-Edw.  HI :    Ed., 

Henry  Playford.     1805-1810. 
Rotuli  Litterarum   Clausarum  in  Turri  Londinensi  Asservati :  Ed.,  Thomas  Duffus 

Hardy.     2  vols.     1833, 1844. 
Rotuli  Curiae  Regis  :  Ed.,  Francis  Palgrave.     Vol.  H.     1835. 
Rotuli  de  Oblatis  et  Finibus  in  Turri  Londonensi  Asservati :  Ed.,  Thomas  Duffus 

Hardy.     1835. 
Excerpta  e  Rotulis  Finium  in   Turri   Londonensi  Asservati :    Ed.,  Charles   Roberts. 

2  vols.     1835,  1836. 
Fines,  sive   Pedes  Finium :    sive  Finales  Concordiae   in  Curia  Domini   Regis  :    Ed., 

Joseph  Hunter.     1835-1844. 
Rotuli  Parliamentorum,;    ut  et  petitiones  et  placita  in   Parliament©  Edwardi  I -Hen. 

VH,  1278-1503.     Vol.  L 
Ancient  Kalendars  and  Inventories  of  the  Treasury  of  His  Majesty's  Exchequer:  Ed., 

Francis  Palgrave.     3  vols.     1836. 
Rotuli  de  Liberate  ac  de  Misis  et  Praestitis  :  Ed.,  Thomas  Duffus  Hardy.     1844. 
Great  Rolls  of  the  Pipe,  2,  3,  4,  Hen.  II  :  Ed.,  Joseph  Hunter.      1844. 
Great  Rolls  of  the  Pipe,  i,  Richard  I  :  Ed.,  Joseph  Hunter.     1844. 
Issues  of  the  Exchequer,  Hen.  Ill-Hen.  VI  :  Ed.,  Frederick  Devon. 
Statutes  of  the  Realm  :  Ed.,  J.  E.  Tomlins,  John  Raithby,  John  Caley,  William  Elliott. 

1824-1828. 

CHRONICLES    ANO    MEMORIALS    (ROLLS    SERIES). 

Chronicon  Monasterii  de  Abingdon:  Ed.,  Joseph  Stevenson.     2  vols.     1858. 
Munimenta  Gildhallae  Londoniensis ;  Liber  Albus,  Vol.  I:  Ed.,  Henry  Thomas  Riley. 

1859- 
Brut  y  Tywysogion  :  Ed.,  John  Williams  ab  Ithel.      i860. 
Works  of  Giraldus  Cambrensis :  Ed.,  J.  S.  Brewer,  James  F.  Dimock,  and  George  F. 

Warner.     8  vols.     1861-1891. 
Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle  ;  Vol.  II,  translation:     Ed.,  Benjamin  Thorpe.      1861. 
Royal  and  other  Historical  Letters  illustrative  of  the  Reign  of  Henry  HI:     Ed.,  W. 

W.  Shirley.     3  vols.      1862-1866. 

"5 


1 16  THE  SCUTAGE  AND  KNIGHT  SERVICE  IN  ENGLAND 

Chronica  Monasterii  S.  Albani.     12  Vol.     1863-1876. 

Willelmi  Rishanger  Chronica  et  Annales.     i  Vol. 

Johannes  de  Trokelowe  et  Henrici  de  Blaneforde  Chronica  et  Annales.     i  Vol. 

Gesta  Abbatum  Monasterii  S.  Albani.     3  vols. 

Ed.,  Henry  Thomas  Riley.     1863-1876. 
Year-Books  of  the  Reign  of  Edward  I :  Ed.,  Alfred  John  Horwood.  5vols.   1863-1879. 
Annales  de  Burton  ; 
Annales  Prioratus  de  Dunstaplia  ; 
Chronicon  Thomae  Wykes : 

Ed.,  Henry  Richards  Luard.     1864-1869. 
Magna  Vita  S.  Hugonis  :  Ed.,  James  F.  Dimock.     1864. 
Chronica  Monasterii  de  Melsa :  Ed.,  Edward  Augustus  Bond.     1866-1868. 
Matthae  Parisiensis  Historia  Anglorum  :  Ed.,  Frederick  Madden.    3  vols.    1866-1869. 
Liber  Monasterii  de  Hyda :  Ed.,  Edward  Edwards.     1866. 

Gesta  Regis  Henrici  Secundi  Bendicti  Abbatis  :  Ed.,  William  Stubbs.  2  vols.  1867. 
Chronica  Magistri  Rogeri  de  Hovedene  :  Ed.,  William  Stubbs.  4  vols.  1868-1871. 
Matthaei  Parisiensis  Chronica  Majora :  Ed.,  Henry  Richards  Luard.     7  vols.     1872- 

1894. 
Memoriale  Fratris  Walter!  de  Coventria  :  Ed.,  William  Stubbs.     2  vols.     1 872-1 S73. 
Radulphi  de  Coggeshall  Chronicon  Anglicanum  :  Ed.,  Joseph  Stevenson.     1875. 
Materials  for  the  History  of  Thomas  Becket :  Ed.,  James  Craigie  Robertson.     1875- 

1885. 
Radulfi  de  Uiceto  Opera  Historica :  Ed.,  William  Stubbs.     2  vols.     1876. 
Henrici  de  Bracton  de   Legibus  et  Consuetudinibus  Angliae:  Ed.,   Travers  Twiss. 

6  vols.     1878-1883. 
Historical  Works  of  Gervase  of  Canterbury  :  Ed.,  William  Stubbs.    2  vols.   1879-1880. 
Henrici  Archidiaconi  Huntendonensis  Historia  Anglorum  :  Ed.,  Thomas  Arnold.   1879. 
Cartulary  of  the  Abbey  of   Ramsey:   Ed.,  Ponsonby  Annesley  Lyons.  3  vols.  1884- 

1893. 
Chronicles  of  the  Reigns  of  Stephen.  Henry  H  and  Richard  I :  Ed.,  Richard  Howlett. 

4  vols,     1 884-1 890. 
Chronicle  of  the  Abbey  of  Ramsey :  Ed.,  William  Dunn  Macray.     1886. 
Willelmi  Monachi  Malmesbiriensis  de  Regum  Gestis  Anglorum  :  Ed.,  William  Stubbs. 

2  vols.    1887-1889. 
Chronica  Rogeri  de  Wendover :  Ed.,  Henry  Gay  Hewlett.     3  vols.     1886-1889. 
Memoranda  de  Parliamento  :  Ed.,  F.  W.  Maitland.     1893. 
Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer:  Ed.,  Hubert  Hall.     1896. 

PIPE    ROLL    society'. 

Pipe  Rolls  of  the  5th,  6th,  7th,  8th,  9th,  10th,  nth,  12th,  13th,  14th,  15th,  i6th,  17th, 
i8th,  19th  years  of  Henry  H. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  1 1  7 

Ancient  Charters  :  Ed.,  John  Horace  Round. 

Three  Rolls  of  the  King's  Court  in  the  Reign  of  Richard  I :  Ed.,  Frederic  William 

Maitland. 
Feet  of  Fines  of  the  Reign  of  Henry  11  and  of  the  first  seven  years  of  Richard. 

ENGLISH    HISTORICAL    SOCIETY. 

Chronicon  Walteri  de  Heminburgh.   2  vols. 
F.  Nicholai  Triveti  Annales. 

RECORD    SOCIETY. 

Lancashire  Lay  Subsidies :  Ed.,  John  A.  C.  Vincent. 

SELDEN    SOCIETY. 

Select  Pleas  of  the  Crown. 

Select  Pleas  in  Manorial  and  other  Seignorial  Courts. 

Select  Civil  Pleas. 

Court  Baron. 

CAMDEN   SOCIETY. 
Chronica  Jocelini  de  Brakelonda. 
Chronicon  Petroburgense. 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

Foedera,  Conventiones,  Litterae,  etc.,  Thoma  Rymer.    Vols.  I  and  IL    London,  I727- 
Syllabus  in  English  of  Rymer's  Foedera:  Ed.,  Thomas  Duffus  Hardy.  3  vols.   1869- 

1885. 
Calendar  of  the  Patent  Rolls  of  the  Reign  of  Edward  I  :   1894. 
Liber  Niger  Scaccarii  Thomae  Hearnii :  2  vols.     London,  1774. 
Gilberti  Foliot  ex  Abbate  Gloucestriae  Epistolae :  Ed.,  Giles.  London,  1S46. 
Calendar  of    Documents    relating   to  Scotland,  preserved   in   Her   Majesty's  Public 

Record  Office,  London:    Ed.,  Joseph  Bain.     Vols.  I  and  H.     Edinburgh,  1881 

and  1884. 
Ducange :  Glossarium  Mediae  et  Infimae  Latinitatis.     Niort,  188^. 
Bigelow,  Melville  Madison  :  Placita  Anglo-Normannica.     Law  cases  from  William  I 

to  Richard  L     London,  1879. 
Parliamentary  Writs  and  Writs  of  Military  Summons :  Ed.,  Francis  Palgrave.  Vol.  L 

1827. 

AUTHORITIES. 

Baltzer,  Martin  :  Dissertation  zur  Geschichte  des  deutschen  Kriegswesens  in  der 
Zeit  von  den  letzten  Karolingern  bis  auf  Kaiser  Friedrich  II.    Leipzig,  1877. 

Coulange,  Fustel  de  :  La  Gaule  Romaine.     Paris,  1891. 

Creasy,  Edward  S.:  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  English  Constitution.  New  York, 
1892. 


1 1  8  THE  SCUT  AGE  AXD  KXIGHT  SERVICE  IX  EXGLAXD 

Daniel,  Gabriel :  Histoire  de  la  Milice  {ran9aise  et  des  Changements  qui  s'vsont  faits 
depuis  r^tablissement  de  la  Monarchic  fran9aise  dans  les  Gaules  jusqu'ala  fin 
du  R^gne  de  Louis  le  Grand.     2  vols.     Amsterdam,  1724. 

Dowell,  Stephen :  History  of  Taxes  and  Taxation  in  England.  4  vols.    London,  1888. 

Eyton,  Robert  William :  Court,  Household,  and  Itinerary'  of  Henry  IL  London, 
1S78. 

Feilden,  H.  St.  Clair:  Short  Constitutional  History  of  England.     Oxford,  1895. 

Finlason,  \V.  F.,  Editor :  Reeve's  History  of  the  English  Law.  3  vols.  London. 
iS6q. 

Freeman,  Edward  .K.:  Histon.-  of  the  Norman  Conquest  in  England.  5  vols. 
Oxford,   1877. 

Freeman,  Edward  A.:  Reign  of  William  Rufus  and  the  Accession  of  Henr}-  L  2 
vols.     Oxford,  1882. 

Gardiner,  Samuel  R.,  and  J.  Bass  Mullinger:  English  Histon,-  for  Students.  New 
York,  1 88 1. 

Garnier,  Russel  >L:  History-  of  the  English  Landed  Interests.     London,  1892. 

Glasson,  Ernest :  Histoire  du  Droit  et  des  Institutions  politiques,  civiles  et  judiciaires 
de  I'Angleterre.    6  vols.     Paris,  18S2. 

Gneist,  Rudolph :  Selfgovemment,  Communalverfassung  und  Verwaltungsgerichte  in 
England.     Berlin,  1871. 

Gneist,  Rudolph:  Histon.-  of  the  English  Constitution.  2  vols.,  transl.  London, 
1S85. 

Green,  John  Richard:  Histon,-  of  the  English  People.     4  vols.     New  York. 

Green,  John  Richard  :  Conquest  of  England.     New  York. 

Hall.  Hubert:  Court  Life  under  the  Plantagenets.     London,  1890. 

Hallam,  Henrv:  Europe  during  the  Middle  Ages.     3  vols.     London.  1871. 

Hutton,  W.  H.:  Misrule  of  Henr>-  III.     1887. 

Kemble,  John  Mitchell:  Saxons  in  England.     2  vols.     London,  1876. 

Langlois,  Victor:  Le  Rfegne  de  Philippe  le  Hardi.     Paris,  1887. 

Lappenberg,  J.  M.:  Histon,-  of  England  under  the  Anglo-Saxon  Kings.  Translated 
bv  Benjamin  Thorpe.     2  vols.     London,  1845. 

Luchaire,  Achille  :  Manuel  des  Institutions  francaises.     Paris,  1S92. 

Luchaire,  Achille  :  Histoire  des  Institutions  monarchiques  de  la  France  sous  les  pre- 
miers Cap^tians.     2  vols.     Paris,  1891. 

Lyttelton,  George  Lord:  Historj-  of  the  Life  of  King  Henr>-  the  Second  and  of  the 
age  in  which  he  lived.     6  vols.     London,  1769. 

Madox,  Thomas :  History-  and  Antiquities  of  the  Exchequer  of  the  Kings  of  Eng- 
land.    2  vols.     London,  1769. 

Makower,  Felix:  Constitutional  Histon,-  and  Constitution  of  the  Church  of  England. 

English  translation.     London,  1S95. 
Nicholas,  Nicholas  H.:  Histon.-of  the  Orders  of  Knighthood.   4  vols.    London,  1842. 
Norgate,  Kate  :  England  under  the  Anjevin  Kings.     2  vols.     London,  1887. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  1 1 9 

Palgrave,  Francis  :  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  English  Commonwealth.    2  vols.    Lon 

don,  1832. 
Palgrave,  Francis:  History  of  Normandy  and  of  England.     4  vols.     London,  1878. 
Pauli,  Rheinhold  :  Geschichte  von  England.     3  vols.    1829. 
Pearson,  Charles  H.:  History  of  England  during  the  Early  and  Middle  Ages.  2  vols, 

London,  1867. 
Phillips,  Georg  :  Englische  Reichs-  und  Rechtsgeschichte  seit  der  Ankunft  der  Nor- 

mannen.     2  vols.     Berlin,    1827.       (Appendix  with    Tractatus  de  Legibus  of 

Glanvil.) 
Pike,  Luke  Owen  :  Constitutional  History  of  the  House  of  Lords.     London,  1894. 
Polluck,  Frederick,  and  Frederic  William  Maitland  :    History  of  English  Law  before 

the  Time  of  Edward  I.     Cambridge,  1895. 
Round,  John  Horace  :  Geoffrey  de  Mandeville :  A  Study  of  the  Anarchy.     London, 

1892. 
Round,  John  Horace :  Feudal  England.     London,  1895. 
Seebohm,  Frederic :  English  Village  Community.     London,  1890. 
Seeley,  John  Robert :  Greatest  of  All  the  Plantagenets.     London,  i860. 
Smith,  G.  Barnett:  History  of  the  English  Parliament.     2  vols.     London,  1892. 
Stubbs,  William:  Constitutional  History  of  England.     3 vols.     Oxford,  1891. 
Stubbs,  William  :  Early  Plantagenets.     New  York,  1891. 
Stubbs,  William  :  Select  Charters.     7th  ed.     Oxford,  1890. 

Taswell-Langmead,  Thomas  Pitt :  English  Constitutional  History.    London,  1890. 
Thierry,  Augustin :  Histoire  de  la  Conquete  de  I'Angleterre   par  les  Normands.     4 

vols.     Paris,  1877. 
Traill,  II.  D.,  Editor:  Social  England.     4  vols.     London,  1894. 
Vinagradoff,  Paul:  Villainage  in  England.     Oxford,  1892. 
Waitz,  Georg  :  Deutsche  Verfassungsgeschichte.     8  vols.     Kiel,  1880. 
Wakeraan,  Henry  Offley,  and  Arthur  Hassall,  Editors :  Essays  introductory  to  the 

Study  of  the  English  Constitution.     London,  1891. 

SPECIAL  ARTICLES. 

Bird,  S.  K.:  Scutage  and  Marshal's  Rolls.     Genealogist,  1884,  p.  65. 

Boutmy,  E.:  Le  Parlement  en  Angleterre.     Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  1886,   clxxvi, 

p.  90. 
Hall,  Hubert  :  Preface  to  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer  (Rolls  Series). 
Little,  A.  G.:  Gesith  and  Thegn.     English  Historical  Review,  IV,  p.  723. 
Round,  J.  H.:  English    Historical    Review,  III,  501;    VI,  417  and  625;    VII,  301. 

(Republished  in  Feudal  England.) 
Stubbs,  William  :  Preface  to  Benedict  of  Peterborough,  Vol.  II  (Rolls  Series). 
Stubbs,  William :  Preface  to  Roger  Hoveden  (Rolls  Series). 
Stubbs,  William  :  Preface  to  Walter  of  Coventry  (Rolls  Series). 


k 


RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 


CIRCULATION 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


;|BCD  QRC  P^^ 


I 


slJ. 


ay 

C7i 


i^ 

2 


<: 


^      = 


m'' 


LD  21-32771-3, '74 
(R70578l0)476— A-32 


LD21A-60ni-3,'70 
(N5382saO)476-A-32 


G«neral  Library 
University  of  California 
Berkeley 

General  Library 
University  of  California 

Berkeley  i 


^S^^<^:^f^ 


ss 

^ 

g^ 

B^^ 

SksS 

^^ 

i^^j 

^^ 

^^ 

^s 

^^ 

^ 

^^ 

S^H 

g 

1 

B 

^^ 

Of^^ 

^^ 

3^^^ 

^^ 

^^ 

^^ 

^^ 

^S 

H 

S 

S 

/' 


JC 


737 


y^< 


